BETA UPDATES 2010

[Iƒrit]

I think its some players prefer the large numbers yet slow pace of perg...
I am a bit irrated they sit a build up to page 1 with no fear of loosing it, essentially they complete an accomlishment but have no worries of loosing it....

[Forum]

count me in!!

Yall heard the man, who's up for a rousing chorus of "Jason does not listen"?

nope. this gives the unascended biggest bonus, and anyone ascended less the more they are ascended...its an ouse (or a house) for the dis-ascended. levels some of the difference, if they want to try for it....the advantage, though, still goes to ascendeds, even without AB.

Were their any plans on reducing the science house's bonus?

that one is. i think (at this point) it may be only one... but i'd have to double check.

Are Alliance bought perks permanent? As in would the increase in bank capacity stay if you switched alliances?

[Forum]

ok - i am caught up. i think i have successfully listened, and adjusted accordingly. even got a few cool last minute updates in.

i think i am ok with what we have.
keep in mind its a LOT - please don't just focus on the couple things you don't like
but if something is BAD for the game, also speak out.

i am going to set live for a week from now...will announce on main page in next 24hours.

this gives time to outline all the updates in beta updates page more clearly. anything i have said i will look at still, can still make it.

otherwise, we have a finalized list of updates coming to main...

keep comments coming, i will keep reading

[Iƒrit]

id also like to throw at you the idea of cap for MS on perg, no reason a MS that can compete in norm should even have acess to the choice of perg

[MaxSterling]

done and done.
def weapons now corrode more slowly, and are also helped by realm alert...

...and weapons lasting longer.

This is really the only option to increase a defense's usefulness. Which is why my suggestion to tie weapon fatigue to realm alert would probably work the best.

Increasing costs hurts smaller players.

No matter what the power levels are, massing will not change unless the weapons last longer.

This will actually be HUGE on massing costs and ATs. In fact if someone is on crit + nox, depending on how you did your calculations... this could potentially take 4X as many ATs to accomplish and would no longer require the 3AT minimum to attack.

It's definitely something that someone should be testing on Beta to see how many ATs are required to mass a defense. Plus with more attacks required to zero the defense, the amount of attack supers that will be lost could be quite a difference as well.

[Rottenking]

im interested with that will happen with perg, i see that the goal of perg, to protect the smaller players from the "big guys" (my interpritation) is failing,
i think that maybe it should be capped at AG for perg, i think we can all agree AG is pretty easy to attain, cheap and i think is a fair milestone between unascended and unknown.

i think the current limits are ok in regards to size, on the most part i think that alot of people dont have 50mill uu trained to create a top 30 account.

but maybe for a further limit, maybe have it so a requirement is to have aleast 40% of your army in perg in miners?

im not saying the huge power players in perg are bad, but i think it defeats the purpose that perg was required for

any thoughts on the above?

[Baxter]

wants to say THANKYOU JASON!!!!
tis good work you have done, and was probably very tiresome

[Clarkey]

perg should be for those only below Living God and 30 million or taken away altogether now as it gives us more to play with

Maybe scrap the perg army size limit and only make perg accessible for the first 90 days since an account has been created? Or something along those lines...... a certain amount of time that gives a new account enough time to grow in perg and ascend to a decent level before being kicked out of perg after 90 or whatever days?

[Sylus]

I have no interest in playing norm for a while. I played it for 2 1/2 years, and at the end I stopped enjoying the game.

I came to perg, I found a slower pace, where I could still enjoy the game. There are already enough restrictions on perg as is, 60 turn on a single player, no market, restricted turns, restricted army size.

It's like hitting my head against the wall when I talk to norm players about perg. I either get called a coward, or someone who exploits the system. And it's all about rank (read: egos), perg ranks upset norm . The fact that perg is a different style of play that relies on higher power levels with a capped army size never enters into it. I never saw perg as a place to grow, I built my account in norm, and ascended to EAG there. It's easier to grow in norm, with an abundance of farms, and access to the market.

And yet you talk about ascension restrictions, look at the ascension requirements as is, you do realise that perg players have to work their butt off to get the resources for high end ascensions, and they can't stay in perg to do it.

Let's make it perfectly clear. Norm players hate perg. Simple, nothing constructive is ever said, norm is hell bent on making it unplayable. And if you put those updates in, you will have succeeded. Even a 90 day cap, what would the point be? Might as well just obliterate it. Honestly, why does perg affect norm so much?

Have you ever stopped to think that you are going out of your way to reprimand players who have found somewhere they enjoy playing the game, and continue to? For no discernible reason.

I'm pretty sure the game is struggling to get new members, and it's stuggling to sustain existing members, if you stay the course of screwing up perg, I guarantee you will lose 80% of active players in perg. I'm more inclined to say 100%. I for one have no immediate desire to play in norm. It's got nothing to do with big numbers, I just find it more fun in perg. And I don't see something inherently wrong with that. And yet I have other players who have nothing to do with perg constantly trying to kill any and all enjoyment I have from playing period.

Well Kudos to you.

[renegadze]

I have no interest in playing norm for a while. I played it for 2 1/2 years, and at the end I stopped enjoying the game.

I came to perg, I found a slower pace, where I could still enjoy the game. There are already enough restrictions on perg as is, 60 turn on a single player, no market, restricted turns, restricted army size.

It's like hitting my head against the wall when I talk to norm players about perg. I either get called a coward, or someone who exploits the system. And it's all about rank (read: egos), perg ranks upset norm . The fact that perg is a different style of play that relies on higher power levels with a capped army size never enters into it. I never saw perg as a place to grow, I built my account in norm, and ascended to EAG there. It's easier to grow in norm, with an abundance of farms, and access to the market.

And yet you talk about ascension restrictions, look at the ascension requirements as is, you do realise that perg players have to work their butt off to get the resources for high end ascensions, and they can't stay in perg to do it.

Let's make it perfectly clear. Norm players hate perg. Simple, nothing constructive is ever said, norm is hell bent on making it unplayable. And if you put those updates in, you will have succeeded. Even a 90 day cap, what would the point be? Might as well just obliterate it. Honestly, why does perg affect norm so much?

Have you ever stopped to think that you are going out of your way to reprimand players who have found somewhere they enjoy playing the game, and continue to? For no discernible reason.

I'm pretty sure the game is struggling to get new members, and it's stuggling to sustain existing members, if you stay the course of screwing up perg, I guarantee you will lose 80% of active players in perg. I'm more inclined to say 100%. I for one have no immediate desire to play in norm. It's got nothing to do with big numbers, I just find it more fun in perg. And I don't see something inherently wrong with that. And yet I have other players who have nothing to do with perg constantly trying to kill any and all enjoyment I have from playing period.

Well Kudos to you.

I would guess many use and play perg the way it was always intended...however some are clearly abusing the fact they can't be massed, it's almost like giving them perma PPT. If you don't want anything changed with ranks\power\ascended levels...how about if admin removes the 60 turns a day on 1 player rule? how long do you think until a lot of main players drop size and come in there massing?

It's whole design was to allow the uninitiated to grow without the big accounts constantly kicking them...if you can obtain rank 1 ingame it's fair to say you have a fairly goos understanding of how to build/play

[Sarevok]

I would guess many use and play perg the way it was always intended...however some are clearly abusing the fact they can't be massed, it's almost like giving them perma PPT. If you don't want anything changed with ranks\power\ascended levels...how about if admin removes the 60 turns a day on 1 player rule? how long do you think until a lot of main players drop size and come in there massing?

Erm, why don't alliances/empires to it now then? They do it on main, why not do it in preg. If you got 100 players in there, at 60AT/player, I'm pretty sure you could mass everyone in there. Heck, even 20 players in there is plenty. 2/3rds of the people in an alliance broker their UU to other members, enter perg, mass with the 40-50mUU they enter with, and then leave again.

I can see the appeal of perg. If you can only play lets say 2 hours/day. That allows you to do all the farming you want. 15AT/hit over 4 turns (2hours) and your done for the day. Unlike main, where you can sit there and farm the same people for hours if you have the time

[Lithium]

@Admin

till now game has had 3 groups: little alliance (team) , alliance (up to 24 members) and Empire (3-6 alliances)
since u are improving def how can a little alliance fight back vs many accounts , they ll suffer huge losses or accept to be their farm, being forced to play ppt 4 days and vac or dont log at all.

as much as u improve def to strike u minimiza the retaliation process

[renegadze]

I would guess many use and play perg the way it was always intended...however some are clearly abusing the fact they can't be massed, it's almost like giving them perma PPT. If you don't want anything changed with ranks\power\ascended levels...how about if admin removes the 60 turns a day on 1 player rule? how long do you think until a lot of main players drop size and come in there massing?

Erm, why don't alliances/empires to it now then? They do it on main, why not do it in preg. If you got 100 players in there, at 60AT/player, I'm pretty sure you could mass everyone in there. Heck, even 20 players in there is plenty. 2/3rds of the people in an alliance broker their UU to other members, enter perg, mass with the 40-50mUU they enter with, and then leave again.

I can see the appeal of perg. If you can only play lets say 2 hours/day. That allows you to do all the farming you want. 15AT/hit over 4 turns (2hours) and your done for the day. Unlike main, where you can sit there and farm the same people for hours if you have the time

If you really are asking that then you really have no concept of the game mechanics. Sure 4-5 people could go in there 1 AT hitting in a co-ordinated strike (soon to be 3 AT) but how the hell are they expect to AC? you would need vast amount of people to do so...

you think it's right it would take an entire alliance to take down 1 smaller player?

[Baxter]

why not put a total power cap on perg players?
especially with the updates to covert/AC/def/strike
this way those in perg can still have their slower game-play, and main players dont have to worry bout them getting rank1

[EbilCC]

or get rid of perg and base it on ascended cant hit people a certain amount smaller than you unless they rank is high then there fair game