Planet Update

[jedi~tank]

I dont think the update is bad, I do think if players lost investment due to an update..thats bad, it would defo turn me off the game.

[twistie666]

im with JT on that its like when you first start playng build up alll your resources trying to ascend then someone comes and mases everything on you. its devostating and is very hard to bounce back from.

[Lore]

voted

And I believe admin explination of what a "game/unadvertised feature" was

"If I can't fix it, its a feature" or something along those lines.

[Iƒrit]

pretty soon the game is gonna be only cash players were the wars will be all about how much money you throw at the game, and apparently thats what the "majority" want the game to be about. People choose to invest into a game helping jason pay for running the game thats their choice to make. If someone choose's to make off-black market purchases thats also their choice does that mean the whole game should be about how much you invest in a free browser based game? IMO hell no

[Sarevok]

I fail to see how Jason is the main winner from spenders...

Good Type Gained Per $1USD (to Jason) Gained Per $1USD (to a Player)
Mining Bot 775,000 2,000,000
Attack Turns 900 1,100
Naquadah 750,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000

Where are people MOST likely to buy from? Jason for 755k UU or players, for 2m UU... Jason for 900AT, or players (by was of buying naq, then AT) 1.1k... Jason for 750B, or players for 1T.

The only REAL income he would get, is most likely from AT (due the rarety on market), or supporter packages for merlins.

[~Anubis~]

No this update probably shouldnt be put in as it is. As this particular update shafts everyone who actually bothered to take the risk of building up planets or spending $$$ on the game. An alternative should probably be thought up which does still reduce planet effectiveness but not this greatly.ATM nothing really comes to mind for me personally that wouldnt be a huge slap in the face to anyone who bothers with planets.

[LegendaryA]

No this update probably shouldnt be put in as it is. As this particular update shafts everyone who actually bothered to take the risk of building up planets or spending $$$ on the game. An alternative should probably be thought up which does still reduce planet effectiveness but not this greatly.ATM nothing really comes to mind for me personally that wouldnt be a huge slap in the face to anyone who bothers with planets.

Risk? You mean having few big planets on merlin permanently and/or hiding behind big defs/platforms, and rest being crappy planets and quadruple the raw stats?
What's the fun in a game led by planets, where strike planets face defence planets, and secondarly troops behind those planets?
Well I guess people like to mass minimal killable...lose the least and kill the least. That's just like if there was more techs for strike/def like the two techs you buy each ascension to boost your stats.

A game of bonuses, that's what it is.

[Sarevok]

No this update probably shouldnt be put in as it is. As this particular update shafts everyone who actually bothered to take the risk of building up planets or spending $$$ on the game. An alternative should probably be thought up which does still reduce planet effectiveness but not this greatly.ATM nothing really comes to mind for me personally that wouldnt be a huge slap in the face to anyone who bothers with planets.

Not even the concept of only being able to have 4 planets of the same type, so you can't distribute your massive planet of 9 others, you only have 3 others.
Or leaving it as is, but have the maximum boost being 25%/planet?

[wasmguy]

Its not an issue that affects me but have to say that I am not in favour of this update.

If this feature were to be removed, it would only benefit cash players who buy melins or those big players with the ability to put up insane defences to hold their planets. As it stands, it can allow the smaller people around the chance to have ten effective planets hence it evens the playing field.

Sarevok's suggestion is not a bad one. Reducing the effectiveness of planets to 25% from 50% would reduce the reliance of planets slightly so more people will focus on raw power over planet power.

As for those who complain about losses in massings due to 10 attack planets being used in concert, there is always a counter you can use (defense planets)

[LegendaryA]

Its not an issue that affects me but have to say that I am not in favour of this update.

If this feature were to be removed, it would only benefit cash players who buy melins or those big players with the ability to put up insane defences to hold their planets. As it stands, it can allow the smaller people around the chance to have ten effective planets hence it evens the playing field.

As it stands currently, game makes planets be the "holy grail" for everyone, while planets aren't meant to be the main power from an account, and lack of losses kinda makes accounts...undestroyable? Ah well, super soldiers should be removed along with troops and just have mercs to remain, at least that would fit with how planets are set and stop the hypocrisy about "training" troops .

As for those who complain about losses in massings due to 10 attack planets being used in concert, there is always a counter you can use (defense planets)

Planetgatewars.com?
No thank you..

Massing a defense with almost no losses with my strike having almost no losses...where's the fun? Ah yes...hoping to find people who don't use the "feature" to have some fun. Not hard to guess why so many people mass for "boredom".

Ah well, proper acronym to describe planets/fleets state & effect to the game: GW is "fubar" thanks to both.

----

Oh well, when the gap of 200 active players at once becomes max to expect, I will think inside, "I told you all so", grin a bit about it, and turn my attention to something else.

[ÃÐØÑΧ]

i was tempted to vote yes, but then after a little thought i voted no on the grounds that from what i can tell the main problem can be countered by increasing the effectiveness of defense planets compared to strike planets so if a player wishes they can build the same in defense as others seem to have already done in strike.

this way it doesn't annoy those that have already put in the hard work to build their strike planets and give those that want to the chance so they can do the same with their defense planets.


smug mode for posting what i believe to be the best solution

got to agree with swmbo

[Sarevok]

As for those who complain about losses in massings due to 10 attack planets being used in concert, there is always a counter you can use (defense planets)

Problem for you.
10 attack planets at 100b each = 1T
10 defence planets at 100b each = 1T
Fair? No. That 1T attack, can damage up to 3T defence. And with 10 defence planets, you only reduce that to 2T MORE you can hit.
Lets say you have a 300b attack, and i have a 1T defence. You can hurt the defence, cause your less then 33% (for arguments sake). Now, we both acquire these planets. You have a 1.3T attack, and i have a 2T defence. Suddenly, your 30% power over me, becomes about 60% power.
See the problem?

[Wepwaet]

So what you really want is for your defense to never be damaged by an attack unless the attack is greater than your defense...
Thats not a planet issue thats an overall atk/def balance issue and one that forum is working on.




PS) hey vocal what happened to all the people backing you? Wheres your majority... thats right you were always just a vocal MINORITY (wave that flag now )

[Sarevok]

So what you really want is for your defense to never be damaged by an attack unless the attack is greater than your defense...
Thats not a planet issue thats an overall atk/def balance issue and one that forum is working on.

Not necessarily no. Whilst technically it should be a realistic view (since whom in their right mind would attack someone on their own land at a ratio of 3:1), since instant attacking is what occurs, it would be un-realistic.

PS) hey vocal what happened to all the people backing you? Wheres your majority... thats right you were always just a vocal MINORITY (wave that flag now )

Necessary? Really?

[Wepwaet]

So what you really want is for your defense to never be damaged by an attack unless the attack is greater than your defense...
Thats not a planet issue thats an overall atk/def balance issue and one that forum is working on.

Not necessarily no. Whilst technically it should be a realistic view (since whom in their right mind would attack someone on their own land at a ratio of 3:1), since instant attacking is what occurs, it would be un-realistic.

PS) hey vocal what happened to all the people backing you? Wheres your majority... thats right you were always just a vocal MINORITY (wave that flag now )

Necessary? Really?

Mind restating that first bit there differently, for some reason it made no sense to me, honestly.


And yes very necessary since he's the one who pushed this through in his one on one moment with Forum. Tormenting him is now a reason to play the game/visit the forums.