Calculations - MS amendment - Planet amendment

[IFLuX]

post too damn long

[Mental]

In reference to several posts:

Reading through the posts just sounds as if we should give up, it's a game that's getting smaller each year, why make fixes that could result in players leaving who have been supporting the server upkeep. I don't agree with that, yes the game is small I don't think these updates will bring new players, they might how ever retain current ones.

No one said anything about giving, up but as usual with TAF you have your mind set on one thing & are unable to comprehend something else that may differ from your plan.
People have suggested things in here & in previous threads you have put up, yet you always revert back to your idea without much consideration for theirs.
Frankly, thats what math is good at.
You have a good teacher...
As for the game getting smaller each year, its been hovering around its current account standing for a couple of years now.
Some people need a break & later come back when their ready, others leave for a while with unknown plans when they will return & then from time to time you get old players who want to have abit of fun/see old friends.
As you have noticed there has been a great influx of late due to the facebook page that was set up, I dont see them in here whinging like you are & yet you have one of the best accounts in the game....

I have spoken to large amount of players who have lost interest due planets taking control over the way massing/losses work. Reducing planets is just one idea, they need several implementations so that they retain there power but also don't mean you can take next to 0's losses. Changing the % to raw strike will mean you have to build bigger to reap the rewards, you also stand to loose more. This won't fix the issue, if anything it could make it worse as you have to destroy even bigger stats.

Well if you have indeed spoken to these players, maybe you can ask them to come here & voice their opinion.
Forgive me if I dont take your word for it.

You focus too much around $$ and the upkeep on the game, this should not be something we need to take into consideration when thinking about adjustments. This is the for admins to think about before implementing changes. You can't presume to know if these changes will decrease annual yield, just like I can't

The harsh reality is this is a major factor, because without the income generated from this game (merlins, attack turns etc) then this game would not have been here for as long as it has.
At the end of the day this is a business, yes its a fun game for us but for the admin team first & foremost it is a business & dismissing the idea that they don't need to consider what effect this update would have on the generation of income is just absurd.
Your right I dont know what effects this would have on the income generated, just like you dont know if this update will grow or decrease the population/loyalty of its members.
Unless you have some kind of magic ball you're not telling us about.

My idea's are not for new people, they are for existing people. This is not a simple fix at all, one simple fix will require re-work of nearly everything. IF you decrease MS power, people will focus on planets. IF you decrease MS + planets, people will focus on covert/ac. All these points can be devastating when playing against. The main issue is there is only a few viable routes to invest in.

Indeed it is not a simple fix, so let me get this right.
You want to make motherships smaller, you want cov/ac capped so you cant go past a certain point & you want planets to have minimal effect.
Sounds like taking the game backwards not helping it progress.
At the end of the day, its a game with not alot of areas to spend your naq on so there is always going to be that of not balanced areas.
Limiting things is just silly.

I honestly can't see any of this being agreed upon and implemented, I only created this post due to various people looking into the game and seeing planets/ms still broken and turn there nose at it.

Its a discussion that needed to happen, but just not down the path your wanting it to go....

Houses don't do anything, they can all be countered so this doesn't have much say in the matter.

As you know, houses were never introduced as a sure thing.
But like I said, if you speak to others and get a few alliances in the one spot and give your vote to one of the alliances you trust then you cannot be kicked from that house unless by said alliance.
Ofcourse you can join (cheaters i think it is) that cancels all the bonuses, but this is apart of the fun.
Maybe a time limit needs to be set where an alliance can only spend so long in a certain house before being auto kicked & having a cool off period, would avoid people abusing it.
So in that regard I think my statement holds true.

Motherships and planets need to be amended so that they are not the main drive in the game. Maybe a nerf is not the best solution but all ideas are welcome. If you reduced MS by 100%, give it and year and we are back at square one. I feel as if motherships and planets are too consistent, they add too much power consistently. You could add planet blockers ect.

No matter what path you go down, motherships & planets are always going to be the main drive in this game that people will work on.
A big covert or anti covert level doesn't affect losses like a mothership/planet does, just means with them you have to train more uu to get the desired result if your a lower level.
Adding a planet blocker is silly sorry to say, how would you aqquire it?
Then what is to stop big accounts having this said planet blocker & hitting accounts without it, then basically your making the smaller accounts even more helpless then they were before.

Boosting new account is always a good thing for an old turn based game, I like the idea of implementing more alliance functionality. Paying 200t alliance bank for 35 covert boost, 400t for 37 covert boost, 500t for 38 covert boost. This way alliances will focus on building naq and keeping active. You could implement 200t naq + alliance G&r, alliance members need to be in top 30 for 15 days ect for 10k g&r. This is just an idea, the next question is how do we help lone wolfs then, well you will need to get G&R as well but compete against alliances, it also costs less maybe.

I like the idea of putting the alliance bank to use for something, but it would have to be something for the alliance not individual accounts.
In theory here what would stop someone with a bigger account using said alliance bank for themselves & its easier for certain people then in bigger alliances with more members (TAF/DDE/OE) to choose certain members & jump ahead of all those in the smaller alliances whom do not have the member base to generate such a large alliance income.
Also on that last note, whats to stop a big player sitting there with 1Q naq just banking and banking on 4% to build up the bank which is essentially putting $$ into an alliance bank for individual use.
Maybe something to think about for an alliance bank use would be maybe another an extra alliance PPT for 50T naq or something along those lines, I just think having the alliance bank for individual use could be exploited.

We need to help speed up the account building for people a lot smaller, I can appreciate people spending 100's and I don't want it to be a quick fix, 100t for 40 covert ect. You have to work hard for any change.

Now you're getting somewhere, WE NEED to help the new players/small accounts that don't have time to farm a huge amount nor the money to buy naq.
I have put together a list of things I personally think would be beneficial for everyone.

1) Motherships do not need to be touched, they are fine as they are.
Like I said in a battle with another mothership of similar stats/slightly bigger then they cancel each other out.
Yes it costs more to mass a big mothership, but the rebuild cost for those big motherships is also expensive, that is why I stopped rebuilding mine 2-3x a day for you lot because plain & simply it became too expensive for me to do so.
So there is always two sides to the story in that regard.

Changing motherships for everyone by reducing how big they are & how effective they are will have no effect on the current situation what so ever, its basically being in the same situation but with smaller numbers because there will still be gaps between the big accounts & the smaller accounts regardless of what you do with motherships.

2) Planets I do agree on this actually, I would personally like to see a change in the amount of uu needed to max out/fully utilize your planets.
Atleast double (even triple) what it is now, this makes it more expensive for bigger accounts to mass people (I dont think the effectiveness/kill/lose ratio needs to be touched) but the amount of uu required should increase.
It will promote bigger builds & with people standing to lose more uu they will quite possibly train more spys etc.
I think a change like this could breath new life into the planets saga, no need to limit the amount of one type of planet because like I said before people will just dump 5 planets, sit with 5 attack planets and basically not build a defence & just use attack.
Then also this does not require people to buy merlins from the BM as MT's/PPT would suffice so there is income lost there for the admin team should they go down this path (not saying everyone would do this, but its a possibility).

3) Helping new/older players with small accounts in a MUST.
Like I said above reducing everyones mothership will address this issue in no way, will be like throwing a pebble at a concrete wall.
What I propose in this regard is reduce the cost to get to a 15-20T mothership by half (Yes 50%), this then reduces the time/resources needed to be somewhat competitive.
It is the only way the gap will be closed to an extent, something similar could be done with covert/anti covert levels say up until level 38 (I wont say 39 because then it makes it too easy to get to level 39 for the last ascension).
Hell, if the admin team wanted to get adventurous then they could even explore this with planets as well although I feel this could be exploited and too hard to police so probably not worth the thought.

But in regards to motherships/covert/anti covert levels then reducing costs for small members are a must to help close the gaps, but with that you also run the risk of people whom dont play by the rules using this as an excuse to make illegal multis and getting them to a decent level (mothership/covert/anti covert wise) and sniping with them which is the last thing we need, this is why I dont think the ascension process should be sped up in anyway.
It is already sped up for the first 10 ascensions i think it is where you gain 2 GNR where you would normally gain 1 at that rank.

Another negative on this matter is say you do make it half price for those to get to a 20T mothership, then the guys with 20-30T motherships are the ones that lose out to a degree.
But I'm sure they would enjoy the challenge of having more people to have battles against.

So over all what I propose is: (in the short version, no essay lol)

1) leave motherships as they are
2) Increase the amount of uu needed to fully utilise planets (atleast by double what it is now)
3) Make it cheaper for smaller guys to catch up via cheaper mothership upgrades & cheaper covert/ac levels (to a point)

In my eyes, this is the ONLY way the gap will start to close.
You cant expect small guys to turn around one day and all have 40t motherships with little work, make it easier for them to a point & then things go back to normal for them.
It might also help with if we do get new people, it may help them want to stick around.
At the moment it takes far too much naq to build a mothership from 0-20T if your just starting out.


But in making judgement, just remember all those guys who are not $$ spending whom have built up planets/their mothership over the years by long hours farming that do not have the luxury of spending $$, by trying to make it harder for $$ spenders you are also giving them a kick in the face.
That is also something to remember.

Also with ryu's idea about mothership percentages, when I was massing da vinci flat out even though my mothership is bigger then his I was losing more shields on each hit.
I was only more effective because my strike was blowing through his defence (but the prick fixed that by making his shields bigger lol)
So I dont think this is really necessary.
But yeah at the moment for me I can spend **Filtered** on my mothership and get next to no benefit, thats how expensive it gets but thats understandable because thats what happens when things evolve over time.
You can't spoon feed people, but I feel my ideas above will help even the game out to a degree, $$ spenders will always maintain a gap & so they should.


hope you enjoyed your essay
Until next time kids

I feel you make very good points changing ratios in the past has had very little effect, I agree there does need to be a balance between haves and have-nots but this needs to be done very carefully as unbalancing the game could very easily be the final nail in its coffin.

Those that eat bread should not just be given cake, They should work to catch those better off than themselves.

[D3ath]

well i dont post much here, but can tell most of those suggestions are crap as it wont solve any problems whatsoever.

If you want to get rid of mses and planets, you only need to change the way how it gives bonus for players so it wouldnt be worth for them. and having 25% instead of 50% wont do much at all, if u want to do something it has to be as low as liek 10%. Also 5 planet **Filtered** also isnt good cause people can just go for covert instead and abuse that part. To me it all looks like you guys just want to mass bigger stats after u drive the game to the current state. I think in the past there were such suggestions, that if a player keeps the planet not on merlin he gets the bonus, and otherwise they should get no or very little bonus from planets as well. So this way people can retaliate and take those planets from them. Also it should opposite for income/up planets, that you need to merlin those to get a bonus, so that people wouldnt just abuse it on ppt runs.
Also the problem for letting players catch up to some ms extent, it doesnt do much if the enemy just breaks through your ms immediatelly cause it only increases your loses.

and dont forget, that no matter what they you will go, people will just find the optimal way to go and will abuse it again.

[Comulous]

i disagree with the suggestions. so rly you are saying you had more fun with a smaller account? that is easy to fix also you could just build your MS to 20T only if you wanted more fair 1v1s. and that would encourage those with smaller MS's to build up and also they would have a fair chance in a fight.

i have always massed larger accounts with my smaller ms, so it is possible, just costs more. and in short wars that is not too much of a problem but i wont do that forever, and waste all my resources forever. the guys here with bigger MS's always finish off the enemy quickly so its not a problem when you are in an alliance.

i dont think anything should be taken away from those that have spent countless hours farming and years building their accounts. also one large account does not destroy an alliance, not sure where that came from, just cause some write propaganda on the forums does not make it true. i do like the idea of making it cheaper to get to 12T MS though, that would make it a bit more even for players coming back

[~Sabaku no Gaara~]

i disagree with the suggestions. so rly you are saying you had more fun with a smaller account? that is easy to fix also you could just build your MS to 20T only if you wanted more fair 1v1s. and that would encourage those with smaller MS's to build up and also they would have a fair chance in a fight.

i have always massed larger accounts with my smaller ms, so it is possible, just costs more. and in short wars that is not too much of a problem but i wont do that forever, and waste all my resources forever. the guys here with bigger MS's always finish off the enemy quickly so its not a problem when you are in an alliance.

i dont think anything should be taken away from those that have spent countless hours farming and years building their accounts. also one large account does not destroy an alliance, not sure where that came from, just cause some write propaganda on the forums does not make it true. i do like the idea of making it cheaper to get to 12T MS though, that would make it a bit more even for players coming back

Took the words right off my mouth.

[Loki™]

i disagree with the suggestions. so rly you are saying you had more fun with a smaller account? that is easy to fix also you could just build your MS to 20T only if you wanted more fair 1v1s. and that would encourage those with smaller MS's to build up and also they would have a fair chance in a fight.

i have always massed larger accounts with my smaller ms, so it is possible, just costs more. and in short wars that is not too much of a problem but i wont do that forever, and waste all my resources forever. the guys here with bigger MS's always finish off the enemy quickly so its not a problem when you are in an alliance.

i dont think anything should be taken away from those that have spent countless hours farming and years building their accounts. also one large account does not destroy an alliance, not sure where that came from, just cause some write propaganda on the forums does not make it true. i do like the idea of making it cheaper to get to 12T MS though, that would make it a bit more even for players coming back

MS isn't really the problem. Planets are.

[Führer]

MS isn't really the problem. Planets are.

Indeed it may seem that way for someone with no planets at all, but if you have 5 duals which is easy enough to do without spending a cent on merlins then that ratio difference is significantly reduced.
Plus if you reduce the effectiveness of planets its just a kick in the face for those who dont buy naq and have worked hard for months/years building the planets they have whom sit in the middle class (as bernie would call it), how is it fair to take away all their hard work?
You're basically reducing the effectiveness they have, I'll use touched by god as an example he doesn't spend a cent on buying naq but he builds some nice duals (albeit he loses them often haha)
But none the less its easy to find them with so many people having them these days & missing their ppt's, so people have ample opportunity to acquire them and I'm going to be totally honest here, they're not that expensive to build to 500b/500b (att/def) even 1t/1t is very affordable, beyond that it starts to get expensive.

Moral of the story is it is not hard to aquire planets & utalise them exactly the same as the big guys can.
Even if you want 10 duals & dont mind spending a little $$, between PPT/MT's for merlins you only have to spend $8.50 a week on merlins but since the minimum is $10 you can spend at any one time, you will have a surplus over time where you wont have to buy any that week.
So to me using planets as an excuse is just pure laziness because everyone in the game has equal opportunity in acquiring them & building them if you are active enough, not just the bigger accounts.

The suggestion was raised about raising the amount of uu needed to max planets, which is fine by me but once again it also affects the smaller accounts who have planets and almost voids the purpose of planets in the first place tbh.

I dont want to sound like a **Filtered** here, but maybe people need to stop whinging & just play the game.
I'm not saying that because of the size of my account, but as com said it is not a big problem to mass an account with a bigger mothership &/or with planets, its just more expensive & to be perfectly honest so it should be. (as she said its only in the stupidly long ego wars like DDE Vs TAF where it becomes an issue for smaller accounts but once again always bigger accounts in the alliance to take over).
Those people with big motherships & decent planets worked hard to get them to where they are, why should they have their hard work taken away or made less effective because others are too lazy to put in the required effort to maintain some planets & a half decent mothership?
If you are active it is easily done, for those that play once here and there you can't really to expect to just jump on after a year or more & mass people who have been consistently playing during that time period you were away & have similar losses.

For those returning to the game or new comers that lost their account/s, I had made a suggestion in helping them progress to a certain level quicker which personally I would like to see happen.
But limiting motherships/planets I don't think is the way to go about this, but I am all for making it quicker for small accounts to get to a certain level.

[Mental]

People who hold many duals sacrifice playing time usually to hold that advantage so, on the whole, they do not represent a constant problem just a part time one.

I have found all of my duals, They pop up regularly from some you don't have to have a full set to make a difference, Maybe it's those that cannot hold onto theirs that have these issues?

[Loki™]

Nothing changes the fact that most players will feel discouraged when they are taking 10x losses compared to the other guy.

[Führer]

Nothing changes the fact that most players will feel discouraged when they are taking 10x losses compared to the other guy.

Indeed, but answer me this.
Why should someone that has spent 6-12 months plus building up their planets through hard work (farming not buying) have the same losses as someone like yourself who has just returned to the game?
It's a little unfair don't you think?

Like i said everyone has ample opportunity to get themselves some duals, just most are either too lazy to go looking or cant be bothered in trying to keep them.

To quote mental here, "those that eat bread should not be given cake".
In other words work for it like everyone else has to & dont just expect things on a silver platter.
I remember back when i used to mass HE, sure was expensive but i did it. I just copped it on the chin & took it as part of the game.
Its only more common noe because alot more have planets, its not always a bad thing.

About people feeling discouraged, not always the case.
May inspire them to work harder to build their account.
As da vinci said, we cant make assumptions and pretend we know how others feel, we only know how we react to situations.

[Clockwork]

Planets are easy enough to tweak, while still maintaining a sizeable advantage in ownership of said planets.

Make 'Stat' planets cumulative to a Planet Stat pool. Make the Planet stat pool a single additive to the Regular Stat total up to but not exceeding the current Regular Stat total.

So, say you built a 10T Strike with UU/Weps, and you have 10 x 1T strike planets. You would end up with a 20T total strike, perfectly straight forward.

Say you built a 5T Strike with UU/Weps, but had the same 10 x 1T strike planets. This time, your total Strike would cap at 10T. 5T from the Regular UU/Weps and 5T from the Planet Stat pool.

And Say you had a 20T strike with UU/Weps, and again the same 10 x 1T strike planets. You would end up with a 30T strike, 20T from the UU/Weps and 10T from the planets.

Still half as expensive as a guy with no planets, but to make full use of the planets requires you to build matching stats with regular UU/Weps.

As for Non-stat planets, like UU or NAQ, just cap their effectiveness while on Merlins, allow un-used merlins time to be reclaimed (rounded down to the closest 24 hours). So, while on the UU/NAQ planets are not very effective, and while off merlins but potentially vulnerable to being stolen, they are 100% effective.

As for HUGE MS's, like others have said you can go in the anti-MS house, or maybe add an ION CANNON DEFENCE plaftorm to the market, that grants immunity from attacking MS's (combat not planet stealing) for X hours. Pick and choose how you spend your market turns.

[Loki™]

Nothing changes the fact that most players will feel discouraged when they are taking 10x losses compared to the other guy.

Indeed, but answer me this.
Why should someone that has spent 6-12 months plus building up their planets through hard work (farming not buying) have the same losses as someone like yourself who has just returned to the game?
It's a little unfair don't you think?

Like i said everyone has ample opportunity to get themselves some duals, just most are either too lazy to go looking or cant be bothered in trying to keep them.

To quote mental here, "those that eat bread should not be given cake".
In other words work for it like everyone else has to & dont just expect things on a silver platter.
I remember back when i used to mass HE, sure was expensive but i did it. I just copped it on the chin & took it as part of the game.
Its only more common noe because alot more have planets, its not always a bad thing.

About people feeling discouraged, not always the case.
May inspire them to work harder to build their account.
As da vinci said, we cant make assumptions and pretend we know how others feel, we only know how we react to situations.

I think we our way of approaching this issue is fundamentally different and so it's hard to really convince either one.
That said I didnt say there should be no advantage. Merely that it should be toned down to something like what clockwork said.

[Angnoch]

Planets are easy enough to tweak, while still maintaining a sizeable advantage in ownership of said planets.

Make 'Stat' planets cumulative to a Planet Stat pool. Make the Planet stat pool a single additive to the Regular Stat total up to but not exceeding the current Regular Stat total.

So, say you built a 10T Strike with UU/Weps, and you have 10 x 1T strike planets. You would end up with a 20T total strike, perfectly straight forward.

Say you built a 5T Strike with UU/Weps, but had the same 10 x 1T strike planets. This time, your total Strike would cap at 10T. 5T from the Regular UU/Weps and 5T from the Planet Stat pool.

And Say you had a 20T strike with UU/Weps, and again the same 10 x 1T strike planets. You would end up with a 30T strike, 20T from the UU/Weps and 10T from the planets.

Still half as expensive as a guy with no planets, but to make full use of the planets requires you to build matching stats with regular UU/Weps.

As for Non-stat planets, like UU or NAQ, just cap their effectiveness while on Merlins, allow un-used merlins time to be reclaimed (rounded down to the closest 24 hours). So, while on the UU/NAQ planets are not very effective, and while off merlins but potentially vulnerable to being stolen, they are 100% effective.

As for HUGE MS's, like others have said you can go in the anti-MS house, or maybe add an ION CANNON DEFENCE plaftorm to the market, that grants immunity from attacking MS's (combat not planet stealing) for X hours. Pick and choose how you spend your market turns.

This seems like the best thing proposed so far. Although I dislike the idea of merlins decreasing the bonus of UP and Income specifically, instead Merlins should decrease any planet behind a merlin by a percentage.

Something else would need to be done to balance UP and income planets, perhaps balance them in a similar manner as stat planets where they are tied to your total pool?

This might increase the variety of planets that an account would desire as now you can't just focus one or two planet types to make up all your losses. I think an overall rebalancing so that planets can maintain being powerful tools and not be far and away the most broken thing about would be a good thing.

[Flintcawk]

Well i know what im not gonna invest in for awhile..

[Führer]

Planets are easy enough to tweak, while still maintaining a sizeable advantage in ownership of said planets.

Make 'Stat' planets cumulative to a Planet Stat pool. Make the Planet stat pool a single additive to the Regular Stat total up to but not exceeding the current Regular Stat total.

So, say you built a 10T Strike with UU/Weps, and you have 10 x 1T strike planets. You would end up with a 20T total strike, perfectly straight forward.

Say you built a 5T Strike with UU/Weps, but had the same 10 x 1T strike planets. This time, your total Strike would cap at 10T. 5T from the Regular UU/Weps and 5T from the Planet Stat pool.

And Say you had a 20T strike with UU/Weps, and again the same 10 x 1T strike planets. You would end up with a 30T strike, 20T from the UU/Weps and 10T from the planets.

Still half as expensive as a guy with no planets, but to make full use of the planets requires you to build matching stats with regular UU/Weps.

Whilst I personally don't think planets need to be touched, something like this could be an improvement.
I am still of the opinion why should we go down the path of reducing a planets effectiveness (ultimately what we are doing by making them more expensive to realize their full potential) when most who have them have put so many hours farming into building them up only to please those who are too lazy to do so.
Seems kind of like a kick in the face (obviously my argument is based upon those who farm & not buy naq).
But if something is to be done, increasing the uu quantity needed to realize the potential of planets, I guess it is a step in the right direction.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't believe there are any "big" accounts that go around picking on smaller accounts, I would understand the need for an update on planets if that was the case but there will always be a split between big & small accounts, nothing is going to change that.
Personally I think they're fine as they are but as I said if something "IS" to happen then I think this is a better option then reducing the effectiveness planets have in battle.

As for Non-stat planets, like UU or NAQ, just cap their effectiveness while on Merlins, allow un-used merlins time to be reclaimed (rounded down to the closest 24 hours). So, while on the UU/NAQ planets are not very effective, and while off merlins but potentially vulnerable to being stolen, they are 100% effective.

I'm sorry but to me this sounds a little silly, effectively all this is going to do (not saying by a great extent because most people don't merlin these types of planets anymore) but I feel all this would be doing is limiting the amount of income from these types of accounts on the server.
When off PPT people take great advantage of accounts that are income accounts, its a guaranteed wealthy supply of naq per turn.
To introduce something that could possibly take some of that away from potential farmers seems like going backwards a little.
By having these types of accounts it encourages people to build a defence to keep it safe.

As for HUGE MS's, like others have said you can go in the anti-MS house, or maybe add an ION CANNON DEFENCE plaftorm to the market, that grants immunity from attacking MS's (combat not planet stealing) for X hours. Pick and choose how you spend your market turns.

Definately an interesting concept this one, I would be interested on hearing what specific suggestions you have on the finer details on this as it would be quite a powerful feature when in a war with another alliance.
As it would be a rather powerful feature ingame especially if you are planning to mass an account with a big mothership I would think a time frame of 30-60 minutes would be acceptable (any longer I feel would be a little over-powerful if you will) & using say 4MTs to ensure it could only be used once a week thus being quite expensive employs the account bearer to consider their options carefully on how they want to spend their MTs.
After all there are a lot of options out there for assistance at the moment, we don't want to get to the stage where there is "too" many.

I think we our way of approaching this issue is fundamentally different and so it's hard to really convince either one.
That said I didnt say there should be no advantage. Merely that it should be toned down to something like what clockwork said.

Ofcourse we don't have the same views, I have 10 planets & you have I dont know how many but I'm going to have a crack & say 0.
Like I said you've been gone for a year or more now, so can't expect to come back & have everything like it was because plain & simply that wont happen.
Indeed planets could be tweaked, but its a fine line between what is too power & what is not powerful enough for what has been invested into planets by players.

This seems like the best thing proposed so far. Although I dislike the idea of merlins decreasing the bonus of UP and Income specifically, instead Merlins should decrease any planet behind a merlin by a percentage.

I'm sorry but this has to be the worst idea I have seen in this thread, there is no planet ingame currently that cannot be taken (most know what account I'm talking about), So what you're saying is people to get the full benefits have to sacrifice their planets to a degree, I'm not going to use the word that comes to mind regarding this but idiotic is a more PG rated word to serve this purpose.
If this was to happen some (not all) may not see the purchase of merlins off the BM worth it thus the admin team is then losing out on income generated from this, not only that but then you would also have a new game of cat & mouse.
Of people ingame going around stealing duals that were left out to get full benefits & once 24hrs was up abandoning the planet/s just to piss people off, so basically taking sniping to a whole new level.

Something else would need to be done to balance UP and income planets, perhaps balance them in a similar manner as stat planets where they are tied to your total pool?

Personally I think income/up have good ratio's as they sit at the moment, as I stated above its a fine line between being too powerful and not powerful enough for what people have invested & doing such a thing could ruin how much some people are able to enjoy the game.
Not because it makes it harder for them to play, but more so from the point of view that they have put in so much time & effort & now reducing them might make them feel like it was pointless wasted effort to a degree.

Well i know what im not gonna invest in for awhile..

I hear you there brother