Calculations

[Mathlord]

At least with buying tons of units, there is a cap to how many troops someone can throw onto a field at once...somewhere along the way, the ingame black market uu buying cap was raised to plague from the buy cap which is a bit crazy, but that's still a limit.

There's no limit in the power you can add to a planet with $$ bought naq and $$ bought merlins ensuring it will never be touched.

As I've said so many times on skype and on this forum, high empty's planet switching idea is a god awful way to go about things. The big cost with planets is keeping them merlined 24/7. People currently don't switch planets from att/def duals to up/income or vice versa very often so in the big scheme of things that cost is far more minimal. You figure a minimum of 30 merlins a week (though some in this war are using 70) for ten planets (33 for 11) over the course of...forever...of course in switching ten duals you burn 200 merlins (220 for 11) but you'll do that right now at the start of a war and at the end...that should be a serious cost to do.

If you take away that switching cost...you now provide those few cash players who are willing to spend the money for merlins week in and week out forever the opportunity to use their planets as att/def AND as up/income when needed during the same conflict. A huge account boost could now be seen by all the major cash spenders...remember these planets when converted to up/income generally result in unit productions in the 5-10 mil range or more. You would basically be providing to cash players their own built-in naq and uu generator for wars. Who even needs a cash market anymore when if you run out of naq or uu, you go on an 8 day PPT run and you are set once again. When you drop off of your PPT run of course, your attack and defense builds are so cheap with your planets that the hundred mil+ uu you received will last you until your next PPT run.

There has been and always will be a divide between cash spenders and non-cash spenders in this game, but it is in this game's best interest, and absolutely essential for its survival, that there never comes a time when non-cash spenders cannot compete with the cash spenders. That's not to say that a new prior account should easily be able to take down a fully built 41/42 unknown...of course not...but there should never be a pay to win clause in this game. The necessity of $$ spending drives away the average player and shrinks a community.

As I said before, this particular problem will always persist while planets can be merlined AND merlins can be bought on the black market. Merlins in general are a bad idea as they make planets, which can have such a HUGE impact on an account, become untouchable. While merlins aren't going away, we can ensure that the divide never becomes too great between those that can take advantage of their fully built planets and those that cannot. Hell that's one reason that anti-covert was made double the power of covert so that people couldn't just easily run away with buying big ass spy levels and be untouched. It's why ac'ing was developed in the first place. It's why whenever one facet of the game begins to dominate all the others, changes have to be made, whether it be defenses, motherships, covert levels or planets. Right now, planets are the dominating facet of the game and since the root problem can't be fixed, we have to do what we can to balance the game as a whole.

That does NOT mean giving even more advantages to people who build and merlin their planets. That means ensuring that people can't overpower the game by pushing one feature above all others.

[Z E R O]

At least with buying tons of units, there is a cap to how many troops someone can throw onto a field at once...somewhere along the way, the ingame black market uu buying cap was raised to plague from the buy cap which is a bit crazy, but that's still a limit.

There's no limit in the power you can add to a planet with $$ bought naq and $$ bought merlins ensuring it will never be touched.

As I've said so many times on skype and on this forum, high empty's planet switching idea is a god awful way to go about things. The big cost with planets is keeping them merlined 24/7. People currently don't switch planets from att/def duals to up/income or vice versa very often so in the big scheme of things that cost is far more minimal. You figure a minimum of 30 merlins a week (though some in this war are using 70) for ten planets (33 for 11) over the course of...forever...of course in switching ten duals you burn 200 merlins (220 for 11) but you'll do that right now at the start of a war and at the end...that should be a serious cost to do.

If you take away that switching cost...you now provide those few cash players who are willing to spend the money for merlins week in and week out forever the opportunity to use their planets as att/def AND as up/income when needed during the same conflict. A huge account boost could now be seen by all the major cash spenders...remember these planets when converted to up/income generally result in unit productions in the 5-10 mil range or more. You would basically be providing to cash players their own built-in naq and uu generator for wars. Who even needs a cash market anymore when if you run out of naq or uu, you go on an 8 day PPT run and you are set once again. When you drop off of your PPT run of course, your attack and defense builds are so cheap with your planets that the hundred mil+ uu you received will last you until your next PPT run.

There has been and always will be a divide between cash spenders and non-cash spenders in this game, but it is in this game's best interest, and absolutely essential for its survival, that there never comes a time when non-cash spenders cannot compete with the cash spenders. That's not to say that a new prior account should easily be able to take down a fully built 41/42 unknown...of course not...but there should never be a pay to win clause in this game. The necessity of $$ spending drives away the average player and shrinks a community.

As I said before, this particular problem will always persist while planets can be merlined AND merlins can be bought on the black market. Merlins in general are a bad idea as they make planets, which can have such a HUGE impact on an account, become untouchable. While merlins aren't going away, we can ensure that the divide never becomes too great between those that can take advantage of their fully built planets and those that cannot. Hell that's one reason that anti-covert was made double the power of covert so that people couldn't just easily run away with buying big ass spy levels and be untouched. It's why ac'ing was developed in the first place. It's why whenever one facet of the game begins to dominate all the others, changes have to be made, whether it be defenses, motherships, covert levels or planets. Right now, planets are the dominating facet of the game and since the root problem can't be fixed, we have to do what we can to balance the game as a whole.

That does NOT mean giving even more advantages to people who build and merlin their planets. That means ensuring that people can't overpower the game by pushing one feature above all others.

[Dexter Morgan]

Agreed to a point on the points made Math....But Rupert and I would love to see the votes as to why there is always one more for all nerfs, than to leave it be.....Seems to us that Merlin sales, and Dual sales have been exhausted, and now they need to figure out a way to get more money out of people who have already spent sometimes half their income on their accounts, only for them to be torn apart in one fell swoop......eh Rupert?

[Clockwork]

Agreed to a point on the points made Math....But Rupert and I would love to see the votes as to why there is always one more for all nerfs, than to leave it be.....Seems to us that Merlin sales, and Dual sales have been exhausted, and now they need to figure out a way to get more money out of people who have already spent sometimes half their income on their accounts, only for them to be torn apart in one fell swoop......eh Rupert?

Do you really think they would need to fake a forum vote to change something? It's also 27 votes for change, 15 votes for no change. The most popular change just happens to be 16 votes, one more than the no change vote.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[Setesh]

Three weeks later and no change is still down by one. Still think its fixed?

[IFLuX]

i think update is applied when majority approves it ?

[~Les Erebus~]

i voted for no change.. that is all..........

[Mathlord]

i think update is applied when majority approves it ?

I think update is applied when Juliette sees fit to apply it. It's clear that the majority want a change.

[teesdale]

At least with buying tons of units, there is a cap to how many troops someone can throw onto a field at once...somewhere along the way, the ingame black market uu buying cap was raised to plague from the buy cap which is a bit crazy, but that's still a limit.

There's no limit in the power you can add to a planet with $$ bought naq and $$ bought merlins ensuring it will never be touched.

As I've said so many times on skype and on this forum, high empty's planet switching idea is a god awful way to go about things. The big cost with planets is keeping them merlined 24/7. People currently don't switch planets from att/def duals to up/income or vice versa very often so in the big scheme of things that cost is far more minimal. You figure a minimum of 30 merlins a week (though some in this war are using 70) for ten planets (33 for 11) over the course of...forever...of course in switching ten duals you burn 200 merlins (220 for 11) but you'll do that right now at the start of a war and at the end...that should be a serious cost to do.

If you take away that switching cost...you now provide those few cash players who are willing to spend the money for merlins week in and week out forever the opportunity to use their planets as att/def AND as up/income when needed during the same conflict. A huge account boost could now be seen by all the major cash spenders...remember these planets when converted to up/income generally result in unit productions in the 5-10 mil range or more. You would basically be providing to cash players their own built-in naq and uu generator for wars. Who even needs a cash market anymore when if you run out of naq or uu, you go on an 8 day PPT run and you are set once again. When you drop off of your PPT run of course, your attack and defense builds are so cheap with your planets that the hundred mil+ uu you received will last you until your next PPT run.

There has been and always will be a divide between cash spenders and non-cash spenders in this game, but it is in this game's best interest, and absolutely essential for its survival, that there never comes a time when non-cash spenders cannot compete with the cash spenders. That's not to say that a new prior account should easily be able to take down a fully built 41/42 unknown...of course not...but there should never be a pay to win clause in this game. The necessity of $$ spending drives away the average player and shrinks a community.

As I said before, this particular problem will always persist while planets can be merlined AND merlins can be bought on the black market. Merlins in general are a bad idea as they make planets, which can have such a HUGE impact on an account, become untouchable. While merlins aren't going away, we can ensure that the divide never becomes too great between those that can take advantage of their fully built planets and those that cannot. Hell that's one reason that anti-covert was made double the power of covert so that people couldn't just easily run away with buying big ass spy levels and be untouched. It's why ac'ing was developed in the first place. It's why whenever one facet of the game begins to dominate all the others, changes have to be made, whether it be defenses, motherships, covert levels or planets. Right now, planets are the dominating facet of the game and since the root problem can't be fixed, we have to do what we can to balance the game as a whole.

That does NOT mean giving even more advantages to people who build and merlin their planets. That means ensuring that people can't overpower the game by pushing one feature above all others.

Well said Math

[spoiler][/spoiler]

LOL!

[Drahazar]

I think Planets are the factor for unbalance in this game.

Would it be possible to not limit the size but instead the number of planets that can contribute to an account at one time eg:

An account can have 10 planets made up of the 5 attributes. What if you could only have 3 of the same planet stats at a time effecting your account?

So if I have 10 att planets then only my top 3 planets will add bonus's the rest wont. So I would change some to income or up again only the 3 biggest would add anything?

(No idea if this sort of thing has been mentioned before?)

[harchester]

So planets that are merlined go to a different realm (dimension), SO what if they planets go to pergatory realm instead of them being untouchable they can be touched just it takes LOTS of players to take them down?

i think the game is silly when players have massive planets and are basically massing for no losses while their planets are safe and sound.

so what if people spend money keeping them perma merlined? the game can change whenever it wants....just change it.

why have a stat that is completely un killable...atleast if the planets move to perg they can still be massed...

[dgb]

This is me defending and winning against massive planets.

details
Jul 25, 11:28 High Empty Attack defended 15 173,649 1,194,739 51,241,381,514,500 38,853,517,280,800 details
Jul 25, 11:28 High Empty Attack defended 15 157,693 1,379,449 47,689,774,669,400 41,071,181,130,100 details
Jul 25, 11:28 High Empty Attack defended 15 173,784 1,313,874 50,303,494,625,200 40,631,516,307,600 details
Jul 25, 11:28 High Empty Attack defended 15 170,153 1,407,337 48,802,355,943,800 41,541,170,709,200 details

Now im winning as i defended but actualy im losing badly,ive got a 56 t defence hes got a 18t attack,my ms was out but the diffrence is massive here same when i tried to mass him with a double strike and my ms nearly 3 times his stats and he still won its very hard not to be put by this.

[BenjaminMS]

I lost to CC my 80 tril def... he attacked with +- 100 mil supers (if you convert the armed mercs), I defended with 200 mil super def. CC thrashed my defense (fair and square) (in 15 minutes. WTH happened with the Nox delay?), but with less losses then I did. And in the grand scheme, only planets can explain it. Had I been up to HE, it'd been even worse....
So yeah, planets are OP those days with perma Merlins.

[Mental]

I lost to CC my 80 tril def... he attacked with +- 100 mil supers (if you convert the armed mercs), I defended with 200 mil super def. CC thrashed my defense (fair and square) (in 15 minutes. WTH happened with the Nox delay?), but with less losses then I did. And in the grand scheme, only planets can explain it. Had I been up to HE, it'd been even worse....
So yeah, planets are OP those days with perma Merlins.

That would be double strike not planets.

[BenjaminMS]

I lost to CC my 80 tril def... he attacked with +- 100 mil supers (if you convert the armed mercs), I defended with 200 mil super def. CC thrashed my defense (fair and square) (in 15 minutes. WTH happened with the Nox delay?), but with less losses then I did. And in the grand scheme, only planets can explain it. Had I been up to HE, it'd been even worse....
So yeah, planets are OP those days with perma Merlins.

That would be double strike not planets.

True My bad... I should keep better track of all the features.