Killing miners

[Tomtomtom]

Ey

I'm kinda new to this game(since may), but i used to play and came back of course.

Many things have been changed and i noticed the lifer sucide option. When i attack somone in, say a war - the goal is to inflict the greatest possible damage to your enemy considering that the player itself(galaxy/motherplanet/fleet/idontknow) can not be conquerd and claimed as my own.

The hard part about this would be fighting though his defence, MS. spies and anti-covert. Slaughtering his miners/lifers should be rather easy when the defence is done, yet even having been enlightened to the degree of ascention, having litteraly millions at my command and yet not a single of my minions are capable of shooting an enemy miner or simply taking this miner out of my enemies mine and into my own.

As it is a game, logic can not be the only thing to consider, being able to completely erradicate a player would be VERY boring for the person under attack and would make many players leave after wars, i realize this. Even so, i think it should be possible to inclict losses upon enemy miners.

I belive this would GREATLY increase the dynamic in what has become a paritally static game. If your armysize is 500+ you can't be reduced to ashes. Where is the logic in that - the losers in war lose everything regardless of former glory. Upon being defeated pergatory would serve a much greater purpose for gathering your strenght and rebuilding.

This would bring tactics into this game again, wars could cause peril and actually have a critical outcome. Size wouldn't be everything except for the POWER that the resources the army actually provides you.

In combination with this i would also propose an ability to go completely off the grid. A once per account or per SS(incl ascention perhaps) you would be able to use a name change that would leave a blank name on messages recieved by you, brookers - everything. This would also enhance the game, the depth and the possibilities.

Now. I'm just hoping that all of those reading this arent 500+

let the bashing commence, loverboys

[minisaiyan]

it would put so many people off the game if they have nowhere at all to safely store a supply of units. many have suggested that they leave you over time if on 0 defence, but it would spoil too many people's playing experience, and would get rid of so many farms.

[El_Ryune]

it would put so many people off the game if they have nowhere at all to safely store a supply of units. many have suggested that they leave you over time if on 0 defence, but it would spoil too many people's playing experience, and would get rid of so many farms.

Farms aren't self sufficient and if nobody cares for them they break down. Crops don't plant themselves, livestock doesn't care for themselves. Using this same logic if a game account/farm isn't tended to it should start to disappear. This would lead people to actually looking for new farms regularly rather than relying on some list they have compiled. It would potentially keep those inactive players more active having the knowledge that if they don't tend to their accounts they will start to deteriorate and that they will be losing what they have worked for.

[BarelyAllen]

it would put so many people off the game if they have nowhere at all to safely store a supply of units. many have suggested that they leave you over time if on 0 defence, but it would spoil too many people's playing experience, and would get rid of so many farms.

Farms aren't self sufficient and if nobody cares for them they break down. Crops don't plant themselves, livestock doesn't care for themselves. Using this same logic if a game account/farm isn't tended to it should start to disappear. This would lead people to actually looking for new farms regularly rather than relying on some list they have compiled. It would potentially keep those inactive players more active having the knowledge that if they don't tend to their accounts they will start to deteriorate and that they will be losing what they have worked for.

If someone is being bullied by a larger alliance, they should have their miners to fall back on. Not only that, but if farms disappear, getting naq becomes much harder, and shoves larger players out in front even more. If everyone with any decent amount of miners was active, income would be the only real way to get naq.

[Mathlord]

If miners become killable, then the entire server would be without units in a few weeks I'd imagine. The war-happy individuals would carve up anything and everything until they are the last still standing.

Game would shrink by a huge percentage.

I would give it one thing...if the game was going to be shut down in a few weeks anyway, that would be the perfect way to end it definitively...

[Tomtomtom]

au contraire it would actually force people to be active and add meaning to actually earning units via UP and planets. it would make the game a living game instead of wars which hardly changes anything and loads of inactive accounts. i believe this would help to recruit new players instead of just keeping the old players, because it would be a dynamic game.

and it wouldn't cause Apocalypse... you seriously think the top alliances would eradicate the rest of the server? fighting a big alliance might take huge tolls, but then it would also be a challenge. a reason to gather and fight them back!

and who would kill the miners of the farms? spend loads of AT's killing off every inactive account with a large armysize - sounds insanely boring. And what would happen? Yeah you would have to take resources from someone that is active! To play, fight for resources, stay together in order to be able to farm without getting your ass whopped. Now the game is about who bothers to press the "attack" on a random inactive player the most times i seriously dont see how trying to twist the game towards being an active, living, political, warring game could be something negative?

[Mathlord]

It would put the games in the hands of the people that buy resources off the black market.

Active or inactive won't matter. The only reason this game has survived as long as it has is because you can't fully annihilate someone's account. Give the big spending massers that ability and they will surprise you. It would be quite fast too, when every unit becomes killable it's kill or be killed. I'd expect losses in the tens of billions daily until only a few have big stats left and that alliance gets a major advantage over anyone not willing to spend a lot of dollars.

[jedi~tank]

You cant force people to be active. Killing miners..No, it would kill the farms.

[Tomtomtom]

You cant force people to be active. Killing miners..No, it would kill the farms.

It wouldnt force anyone, it would be a shift of focus. You could still play the exactly the same way, except that if you start a war you might acually lose something.

No it wouldnt unless half the server actively tried to. The miners wouldnt just die in war - civilian losses are a part of war OK, but it would require a spesific attack to slaughter them in the millions and would not be the same type of attack as attacking for resources.


Mathlord:
Then you'd have to stick together with your alliance and avenge your losses. They can't bother you any more than you can them. As for the black market issue, I'm not suggesting only changing this and the game would have to be balanced and considered so that it would work in a good way.


Now the game is like socialism, everyone is middle class seperated only by up, ms and spylevels. Setbacks does of course have a cost but not nearly to reflect what an actual war would cause.

Besides. How many active players are there? Compared to the 80 k registered accounts. Perhaps it is time for a change.

[Mathlord]

There would be no avenging. The amount of units for the majority of players in the game would shrink to nil almost immediately. The only people that would dominate are those that could get a steady stream of units off the black market to keep their accounts fully stocked.

Then, when you see a 100 tril defense standing there and you only have 5 mil uu and are desperately trying to raid while every single unit you make is getting killed, you will truly know defeat.

As I said, if the game was going to be shut down, it would be an effective way of having a definitive conclusion to the game. A final victory or defeat for every player...who is left standing at the end of the massacre. Because it would be a massacre that noone would survive.

[Tomtomtom]

There would be no avenging. The amount of units for the majority of players in the game would shrink to nil almost immediately. The only people that would dominate are those that could get a steady stream of units off the black market to keep their accounts fully stocked.

Then, when you see a 100 tril defense standing there and you only have 5 mil uu and are desperately trying to raid while every single unit you make is getting killed, you will truly know defeat.

As I said, if the game was going to be shut down, it would be an effective way of having a definitive conclusion to the game. A final victory or defeat for every player...who is left standing at the end of the massacre. Because it would be a massacre that noone would survive.

Are you serious? You dont think somone, like admin, could fix a problem like that by adjusting prices/ingame value? And if this game is allready filled with rich sosipaths how come anyone has a defence, spy or attackweapon left? they can allready buy tens of k's of ATs and mass people

[Sphinx42]

they can allready buy tens of k's of ATs and mass people

And those people can at the moment get the naq (and UU) back in little time, even without spending cash - thanks to the many inactive farms out there (some of them with nice incomes).

[Mathlord]

There would be no avenging. The amount of units for the majority of players in the game would shrink to nil almost immediately. The only people that would dominate are those that could get a steady stream of units off the black market to keep their accounts fully stocked.

Then, when you see a 100 tril defense standing there and you only have 5 mil uu and are desperately trying to raid while every single unit you make is getting killed, you will truly know defeat.

As I said, if the game was going to be shut down, it would be an effective way of having a definitive conclusion to the game. A final victory or defeat for every player...who is left standing at the end of the massacre. Because it would be a massacre that noone would survive.

Are you serious? You dont think somone, like admin, could fix a problem like that by adjusting prices/ingame value? And if this game is allready filled with rich sosipaths how come anyone has a defence, spy or attackweapon left? they can allready buy tens of k's of ATs and mass people

Because people fight year long wars to keep them occupied.

[Sarevok]

Weighing in a little late here.

The idea would have been good, had it been in at the start, or near the start. Unfortunately, it wasn't, and with the dominance the cash market provides, it would be detrimental to the game as a whole. Also, due to the instantaneous nature of the game, there would be no whittle down of accounts, just all out destruction. An alliance could choose an active player a day, and reset their account except their UP, covert and ascended level. And this person (without nox) could be in that state in a matter of minutes.

Now, if two players go at each other, and one uses cash on the game, they would win with this in place. Even if both were annihilated, the cash player would spend some money, and be rebuilt in a few minutes. The other player, would have to raid/farm their way back up. Not only does this take far longer, they have nothing to draw from (miners), and inactive accounts maybe in a similar state of dis-repair.

Also, I'd like to point out the time years ago, where there were hundreds of players online at a time. Back then, there was no miners, a much larger majority of all the accounts were active. So when you hit someone for resources, you were most likely hitting someone that was active. There was no drawing on reserves, and being massed, meant you were down for a while, and had to recover.

[Mathlord]

The game was originally this way. When someone got massed, their accounts were leveled completely. Caused a lot of people to quit back in early 2005. It was changed to allow people to have things to build upon so their accounts were never wiped out. That is one of the big reasons this game is still alive today, or we all would have been pushed out aeons ago.