MS fix/Planet fix

[Tropic Thunder]

1) agree with everything about the MS
2) Admin won't get rid of merlins, only way he is getting cash as people at war but USS for the merlins to keep planets..... but i like the ideas.

[Ashu]

If you get rig of merlins,make planet defs cheaper or at least 1 planet that cannot be conquered or something,if not there won't be a point to planets as ANYONE will be able to take them...

[jedi~tank]

Why strip away what we have worked hard for? Think about it here..you dont bring competition down to your level, your raise your level to keep up with the competition..furthermore..the GOOD players with big ms's have been working on them since they began to play..like me, the not so good players buy or trade accounts or spend $$ just for the numbers.


I appreciate your thread Tet but honestly..the idea sgould be to work up not bring down.

[Mercenary]

1. Disagree with every thing about ms's, MS's get so expensive once you get so high, its hard even for the big players to upgrade, and players who have played a long time have earned it, not every random noob should be able to be strong

2. Agree with ridding merlins, that might just be because i dont keep planets of value on main, and people mange to keep planets on merlins 24/7 which means they cant be taken .... if people dont want a planet to be taken, they should build a defense, which would make since for planet defenses to be cheaper

[jedi~tank]

I can agree with the planets thing, but not the MS..and I dont need an MS to compete, I just dont agree for the reasons I stated

[jedi~tank]

Well planets, if you think about it, you can make 1 planet untakable. 3 full built platforms and max defenses on planet. Id like to see someone pull that off.

As for the MS's, the competition is already there. Its not bringing anything down JT, its actually making more of it. The more you want MS techs, the more your gonna have to put into them. The MS techs give you a cheap boost.

so whats wrong with a boost? it gives small ones a boost as well, hell when your ms is 3 tril the boost is irrelevant if the opponent is no where close

[Ashu]

Why doesn't anyone like merlins?Or planets?You obviously can't keep them otherwise...WHY have them?

[jedi~tank]

Well planets, if you think about it, you can make 1 planet untakable. 3 full built platforms and max defenses on planet. Id like to see someone pull that off.

As for the MS's, the competition is already there. Its not bringing anything down JT, its actually making more of it. The more you want MS techs, the more your gonna have to put into them. The MS techs give you a cheap boost.

so whats wrong with a boost? it gives small ones a boost as well, hell when your ms is 3 tril the boost is irrelevant if the opponent is no where close

So then whats wrong with the idea if the big MS's dont need it? Take it away completly except for new accounts?

It gives some measure of competition, and balance.

why not just leave it as I said, why take away, add something for the new players that will fade out as thier account increases

[Tropic Thunder]

Well planets, if you think about it, you can make 1 planet untakable. 3 full built platforms and max defenses on planet. Id like to see someone pull that off.

As for the MS's, the competition is already there. Its not bringing anything down JT, its actually making more of it. The more you want MS techs, the more your gonna have to put into them. The MS techs give you a cheap boost.

so whats wrong with a boost? it gives small ones a boost as well, hell when your ms is 3 tril the boost is irrelevant if the opponent is no where close

So then whats wrong with the idea if the big MS's dont need it? Take it away completly except for new accounts?

It gives some measure of competition, and balance.

why not just leave it as I said, why take away, add something for the new players that will fade out as thier account increases

why do you need it so bad, theres nothing wrong with a overal 30% decrease of MS's :S

[Legendary Apophis]

Agreeing with MSs ideas.
However, for planets...merlins stay. But it changes from current situation.

Here's my input for planets (some old suggestions I already mentionned inside):

-Added power is only 1/2 of the ground strike. Example: 150bil ground strike, 550bil MS strike added, 700bil strike planets. You get 300bil strike with MS adding only 150bil! So you get 450bil strike from this at max. MS power doesn't change, just power added being capped.

-Strike and defence planets are damaged when being hit/hitting. This way invincible strikes disappear. No more free costs farming all around. It's not realistic. Planets get damaged too. Whether they lose slots or this happens to be like weapons damages can be discussed. Defence planets cannot be damaged when ground defence is at zero. Damages both for attacker and defencer are influenced by Attack turns used. If you do 15 AT attack, planets are damaged more than 1AT attacks. Ratios can be discussed.

-Merlined planets remain, but they lose % of bonus. To make it more realistic, let's say 15-20% in example of the planet is used as energy to maintain the merlin, so it cannot be at full bonus. Of course when merlin ends, planet recovers full power instantaneously. % can be discussed. This is to make things fair, and once again avoid the invicible strikes making crazy ratios and undamageable. Merlins remain, but there's a handicap for using them.

This way, invincible strikes/snipers lose some of their invicibility, they need to build big ground strikes to benefit from their planets/MSs fully, and not be on merlins to have full planets powers.

[BenjaminMS]

A few things...

Some time ago, at the introduction of the def platforms, Silent Bob (at least he told me) he had 3 platforms and a def on a planet... total power 5 tril+. Got stripped away by Orpheus and others.

About the planets losing power when used in attacking/defending etc... it is either that, or losing Merlins...not both. The losing power, although I understand the reasoning behind it, is pretty sick. Not only the bigger players who've build their planets (and spent trillions of naq on it to get it to an 100-200 bil boost in atk and/or def) will get hurt, but also the smaller players - and those can afford it even LESS. Backfire anyone?

@ the techs idea... seems reasonable enough... however, if you invested in techs now, you should get it back... fair enough, no?

@ the following

-Added power is only 1/2 of the ground strike. Example: 150bil ground strike, 550bil MS strike added, 700bil strike planets. You get 300bil strike with MS adding only 150bil! So you get 450bil strike from this at max. MS power doesn't change, just power added being capped.

Mmm.. yes, no, or maybe? I tend to say yes

@ Pop's idea... good reasoning. I'd say yes

[muffafuffin]

Well then, lets think of another way for Admin to generate money, but affect the basic game play.

*Thinks*

...
....
.....



Cheap ATs. 1$ per 1k. Limit of 10k per week?

Earned 10$ off 1 account, and I can garuntee you that players will do it every week, but doesnt give a very big advantage.

dont they sell Ats 1,100 for $1?

[Tekki]

Define 'Big MS'?

What's a big MS? Anything bigger than yours or anything bigger than a certain pre-defined size? There are 2-3 MS bigger than 3trillion and more every day getting up over 2trillion. Now while many may go that's unfair, why are the top ones SOOOO big, I would invite you to look at other stats. As we progress down the ranks in other stats - like from rank 10 to rank 1 attack/defence/covert, you do get a similar progression. It is normal for the rank 1s of any stat to be VERY VERY VERY much bigger than the 'average ranks'.

Then what do you do if someone has the slots on a 'small' MS and the techs and takes on someone who doesn't have the techs and wins. Not very fair, if a MS can get a boost BIGGER than that of one that can't.

As for merlin - you will not convince Admin that removing it is good, though he wasn't upset by an idea that came up earlier - whereby the planet owner can remove merlin just like a PPT ending.

If we really want to do something about imbalance, I'd be looking at a way to allow a new account multiple ascensions as the one time - like from unascended to LG, providing they have all the combined requirements, since any new account these days is looking at a year plus worth of ascending.

dont they sell Ats 1,100 for $1?

Yep, they do.

[schuesseled]

MS's

Taking away the techs...
Assuming everybody buys Techs, Techs will make no difference.
If everyone has +30%, its the same as nobody having anything.

The only thing taking away techs will effect is make the total MS powers a little smaller, as I said nothing to worry about it will make virtually no difference. But It will decrease total fleet power, this means Planets will be a little harder to beat their defences.

Question you need to ask is, is decreasing total fleets back to the original value a positive or a negative.

I think planet defences since the 2x power update have become massable, even the "Unmassable" planet thoery, which I know of someone who has it, can be massed by a couple players who have built insane fleets, this 30% decrease would make it a little harder for them to reach again to be able to mass said unmassable planets so yeah I think its a solid idea.

The only problem I can see is, Techs reset on Ascension, so the only cost to your MS atm, is MS TECHS on ascending. This can cost you, what is it, 20 / 25 tril, been a while since I brought Techs, per ascension depending if you build MS techs or not on ascending. IS removing this cost a good idea. Id say maybe not, Ascending is too cheap as it is

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Planet damage.

I disagree with it really, planets arent untakeable, or rarely are, unless so please Admin with $$$$$$$, so why add extra costs to something.
Though that said, the game itself would be better off with a Planet fix, and by this I mean total removal of all planets from the game. Problem being that its a good $ fund for admin so he may very well not do it, and well it'd completely change the dynamics of the game. Would be a bit controversual to say the least.

If however this idea is put through, I suggest making Merl'd planets Immune to damage. Merl'ing more than 1 planet can become very expensive, and well, to protect your planets from not only being taken but damage as well, should be a costly process. Even if the cost is in $.

Also It should be impossible for planets to destroyed this way, too abusive. It should also not affect attribute permentally, again too abusive.

Say a planet has a % effectiveness.

Merl'd planets as you said should drop down from 100% to say 75% 80% 85% w.e. (This should be shown differently than normal % effect, perhaps at the "Add merl to planet" button on Planet page"

Attacking / Defending attacks, or perhaps a new type of attack could decrease a planets % effectiveness. Say to 25 or 50% minimum. Dont want people making other players planets give 0 bonus, bit unfair.

The % effectiveness. Could Either or both.

Be repaired with a naqudah cost. Or on a time basis.

I.e pay X naqudah to repair said planet to 100% Effectiveness.
(It will be a button on the planet page, for each planet showing current % Effect, Cost to repair and Button to repair.)

or / and.

At a certain time, i.e 24.00 game time. Either Daily or Weekly, not sure what'd be best. All Planets are returned to 100%. Kind of depends how easy it is for Planets % Effect to be lowered.

The total power of a planet under % decrease can be shown next to the normal power in say red or brackets. Along with the Current % Effectiveness shown also on the planet Page.


...
......
........


If lowered by a new type of attack,

I suggest it either uses 15 turns as an attack, whereby you perform a normal attack, but you dont gain naqudah whereby your strike will have to beat their defence as normal. Losses are 10% of normal losses in an attack. % Decrease Effect on Planets , if won, is shown, if not won, it will say the normal stuff "Enemy beat you lolz"

Could be either an attack on all planets, or you can select a planet like when conquering.

Also for that matter when you conquer a planet, you should get it at 100% effectivness restored.

..
............
.................

Also to make a cost on "attacking" using attack planets, perhaps a small decrease in % on attack planets per attack you make.
Not sure on this idea. Me thinks it would be too costly for attackers, expecially those who use attack planets. But perhaps this is the point, to make costless attacking using attack planets a thing of the past.

Now you can say what about "defending" using defence planets, should this not decrease %, well I say no. Defence is already underpowered compared to Attack, The defender is always loosing out. This time I say no. If you want to decrease a defenders defence planets before massing them, you can pay the costs of decreasing it by having to beat their defence in the first place.
Thereby Defence planets already limited use is kept. Might even make them the best planets to have =).

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Merlins

They should definetly be kept, See no reason why they souldnt tbh, Great way for admin to make $, makes keeping planets easy yet expensive. Works just fine, Imo. If you miss a merl like a PPT your in trouble.

Some people may say they get to keep them with no risk, and that is unfair, well tbh, they pay for what they get. And everyone can do this with 1-2 planets for free.

Slight power loss on Merl is a good idea I guess. 10-20% your not going to miss. Add's a bit of "ingame" cost to the $ buyers of merls. Solid Idea.
Perhaps it can even be so that for each consecutive day a planet is on Merl's it gain's an additional % loss. So e.g. Each time it goes past 24.00 game time +1% temporary power loss is added to the Merl'd planet.
To revert back to 100% power, you need simply leave Merl. Similiar too reseting Nox aye.

Example then.

[spoiler]Planet 12agnar0k.
Has 100,000,000,000 Attack.

It is set onto Merl for 2 days.

It decreases by the set amount, lets call that 15%.

Planet is now on Merl. @ 85,000,000,000. Power Output.

Time goes past 24.00 Planet is still on PPT, so current Power goes to 84,000,000,000

Again Time Goes past 24.00 again.

@ 83,000,000,000.

Planet comes off Merl. Planet goes back to 100% @ 100,000,000,000.

Silly 12ag forgot about his Merl ending, Fortunately no baddies took it. He sets it back with no time to loose back on Merl.

Decreases by set amount@ 85,000,000,000.[/spoiler]

I Believe this works well, also the added 1% cost per day too keep a planet merl'd means that, to regain the lost 1%'s of previous days on merl a planet owner must let their planet drop out of Merl, This (even if for 1 second, as as soon as the turn ends you can simply stick it back on merl) means Merl'd planets can be taken if their owner wants to gain the 1% back.

Perhaps their should be a minimum on this too. But perhaps not. Say 50 or 25% So If you went and merl'd a planet for 100 days it would slowly drop and then stay at the minimum. Meaning that players will ahve to be more strategic with merls to get full benefits.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Added Power

-Added power is only 1/2 of the ground strike. Example: 150bil ground strike, 550bil MS strike added, 700bil strike planets. You get 300bil strike with MS adding only 150bil! So you get 450bil strike from this at max. MS power doesn't change, just power added being capped.

Not a fan of this idea personally. Well I say that. But it would also make game mechanics a bit better.

Would decrease the "over powered" effect Attack planets have. As well as defence planets. No more 20x raw power I guess.

Basically It limits everybody to a maximum of x3 their Raw strike or defence. Depending on whether or not they have the right amount / size of planet and/or MS.

Could Work.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

@MS Techs
I say just intigrate the slots that we have now, into raw. So say if you have an extra 30k slots in both shields and weapons, just get rid of the techs and leave the slots as they are, so that way those that have invested in them now, will get to keep that investment.

No Way.

Think about it.

Someone with a 1 tril volley 2 tril shield MS will get 30% permentally added, this costs umpteen trillions.

Where as someone with a 100 bil and 200 bil shields MS, while also getting to keep 30% of that permentally, If they wanted to catch up with said first player they would get about 80% of the way and have spent the same amount of naqudah as the first guy.

Basically this will only benefit those with Big MS's.

[Tekki]

MS tech for an unascended account is cheaper, thus anyone who was seriously playing would be sponsored. It does happen and it's not that expensive for a decent sponsor to put in enough naq to really really make a difference.

Though... please let it go through. If the re-ascend bug is still there... then wootage for me!