Planet Occupation

[Mystake]

In order for your planet to operate at 100% capacity, a certain % of the resources it creates must be on the planet itself.

aka, a 20b strike planet must have 20b strike action worth of supers and weapons on it. those supers and weps do not die or get damaged, however if the planet gets stolen those supers go bb (untrainable supers?)

same for UP
send over % of uu to the planet

20k UP planet, needs, say, 400 000uu on it to operate at max capacity. planet gets stolen, 400k uu go bye!

that'll add a cost to planets to maybe balance them being so 'overpowered'

[Thesus]

hmm intresting suggestion

[Dagr]

Would it just add to the cost or would you just not have to pay for the upgrade and move the units for that bonus? Could you be able to move those units off the planet in case of a war where you think the planet will be stolen? That might be bad if the planet is stolen and someone takes all your units.

[Thesus]

i would say that the units that you put in would be workers that cannot be untrained on the planet and when the planet is stolen the units are destroyed

[Wolf359]

I'd be inclined to agree with Thesus in that any units on the planet are destroyed if teh planet is captured.

However, I'd always assumed that when you paid for a planets attributes that you're also paying for the infrastructure to make that increase possible......?

[Lore]

we have suggested this before in a different manner. I always liked and agreed with the idea, but everyone says it benifits the large over the small as they can afford it and can better defend their planets.

[Thesus]

i think, i also suggest that it should be a option that well let you increase the amount of units that is allowed on the planet begining with 1000 up to 10 million, naquada increase by double e.g.

1,000 units-free/the starter amount
5,000 units-2.5 billion naq
10,000 units-5 billion naq
100,000 units-10 billion naquada
1,000,000 units-20 billion
10,000,000 units-40 billion naq
etc...

or doubled again

1,000 units-free/the starter
5,000 units-5 billion naq
10,000 units-10 billion naq
etc...

[GeneralChaos]

Remember the whole thing about bigger and smaller accounts, and how the gap was getting bigger, this idea, would push the gap to critical, as a big player could afford it, a smaller guy could not.

Say random big player gets 80k up planet (going on your first post) would need 1.6mill UU to make it work, someone with 200mill army, not a prob, they grow nicely.

Now take a smaller guy, who finds say a 40k Up planet that was taken in a war and abandoned, they would need to put 800k UU on it, this would hurt them real bad if it got stolen, not to mention the cost of defending it.

The current system seems to work, the bigger player or longer running player will always be bigger, a new player can get big but has to put the time in.

[Thesus]

yes this ios true this would push the gap to critical but there must be other ways of inforcing this idea so that it also benefits new comers i will work on it

[GeneralChaos]

Not really, if a new player can come into the game tomorrow, they can already buy 100mill army with $$ and unlimited naq for $$, if you then give them a way to catch the guys who have been playing 2 years, and invested 1000's of hours in the accounts, you kill the game, and take the challenge out of the game, when i first started, i wanted to get my account bigger, to be with the big guys, and i enjoyed it each time i made that next step ( covert lvl, raw up etc )

Make it to easy game dies.

[Thesus]

uh huh

[Wolf359]

Not really, if a new player can come into the game tomorrow, they can already buy 100mill army with $$ and unlimited naq for $$, if you then give them a way to catch the guys who have been playing 2 years, and invested 1000's of hours in the accounts, you kill the game, and take the challenge out of the game, when i first started, i wanted to get my account bigger, to be with the big guys, and i enjoyed it each time i made that next step ( covert lvl, raw up etc )

Make it to easy game dies.

I agree with what you say there completely, but.......

........putting my 'Devil's Advocate' hat on - isn't the fact that new players can buy accounts for $$, exactly the same kind of unfair? - i.e. buying an account on a par with those who have invested 1000s of hours? Surely that also removes the challenge, and simply creates a spoilt brat who thinks because they bought a powerful account they're the best thing since sliced bread, and who then proceed to lord it over people on the forum, and have temper tantrums when they're attacked? (I've seen it happen).

Although I do agree with what you're saying!

[_Rube_Dragon_]

what about income planets casue you can have income planets produce more than you have UU ?

[Thesus]

how about for the stronger you are the more units you have to put on thee planet for it to use 100% of what it can make gradually the amount of uu you need to put on the planet will increase as you get more powerfull this reulting in you having to put more on to keep it making 100%

[Saturnine]

Or how about we just leave well enough alone?

The planet upgrades and defenses are expensive enough. Why complicate matters even further by requiring an army to man the planets?

If implemented, it means that a good chunk of your army size is going to become planet squatters. A waste of good UU if you ask me.

Furthermore, you are going to imbalance the gap between strong and weak ingame. Lets say players have strong planets but weak army sizes. Implement this ingame and you'll screw the less endowed accounts right in the butt and the gap between strong and weak gets larger.

If this is absolutely has to be implemented:

3/4 of the UU army on that planet must die. Lets get real. You just attacked an entire planet, that had to be one bloody war.

UU on the planets ARE NOT added to a players army size I don't know how this would work, but it should.