A final solution? (includes fix for attack/defence massing)

[BenjaminMS]

Let's break this down into things, because it's just too huge... *grumbles*

Right, over the top cheesy speech out of the way....here goes...

Suggested updates:
- New alert roles.. (cost 100 at's to switch)
Critical now = max attack's per turn = 3 full at's. (farming mode = small surgical strikes to get large naq). (45at's).
none = unlimited number of attacks, cannot be on Nox.
Can only be changed once a day. Also changes % chance of Mothership availability (also affected by recent activity, see below for further details!!!). Also reduces uu lost with no defence, inactive account for over 1 week = auto nox and critical (see later for more details!!!)

WTH do you mean by 'cost 100 ATs to switch'? You mean 100 ATs to switch realm alert??? That is frigging NUTS! If you want to destroy people without SS, there you've got your way!
With the alert you mean to max the attacks you can make yourself, or what?... And changing once per day?... *faints* Semper, what you are suggesting to kill off is the thing that makes it fun: the ability to use and slightly abuse the strategic possibilities!
Reduce lost UU with no def? Umm... surprises me already sometimes that you cannot slaughter a whole unarmed army at once... you don't need to seek cover, only fire at will... the logic of it is already (although understandable) lost... And 1 week inactivity automatic nox and crit?... you want to kill raiding and the growth of smaller players don't ya?

The problem with army sizes...
- army size dies with no defence, uu and miners/workers leave unprotected lands. (logical?)
Only lifers are 'safe', however uu -> lifer ration needs to be reduced. Same with ascension. Planets are lost in unprotected realms. = more effort in wars, but now can be very costly for someone who is being 'sat upon'. There would need to be a defence - loss ration dependent on army size. Smaller players should have to have a bigger defence to prevent loss, but bigger players will logically lose more if defenceless. For example, for every 10mill army size = 15bill defence needed, drop to 5bill defence after 100mill (meaning someone with 200mill army size will need to have 100bill defence to stop uu/miner loss, whilst a player on 100mill army size would need the same.)

*sighs* *shoots it* This is even not worth arguing, since it is THAT stupid...

- The high your alert level = less loss. Nox further reduces loss, and PPT halts loss all together.

Seems logical... this time I agree

- introduce new feature = realm activity scale. This is increased by the number of hits on an account per turn up to a number out of 100 (%). The higher the %, the higher the uu/miners lost for unprotected realms (rewards activity). So lets say, literally it would take 33 full, successful attacks in the space of a turn to get it to the maximum potential loss level. These attacks only raise the % lost if the opponent has below the required defence (so you're not going to start successfully killing a 1T defence, get it to 500bill and see your opponent loosing army size a lot more than they should do).

- See 2 points back *reloads his weapons and shoots again*

- Up to a maximum of say.. 1% of available miners/uu PER TURN (meaning a person with 200mill army size, and a defence below 100bill would lose up to 1mill army size a turn). However, if you have say, max alertness and nox reduce this to 0.1% per turn, they would only lose 200k per turn, BUT would be unable to mass and attack back. That's just an example army size. I don't reckon you should the loss of UU feature should take effect until a player is in excess of 20mill army size.

*reloads another time* *get my point?*

A few other things...
- alliance wars must be agreed to by both alliances, when done so there is a 12 hour period before the 5 day (to be increased to 7 days) period start's. Only equal numbers can participate (and can be chosen). Alliance war's can now be won, apply UU loss feature to ALL scenario's.

Idea behind... OK. Idea itself

- Motherships now have % chance of being around for defence if you're attacking/being attacked at the same time. Similar to ascended blessing. More attacks you make = lower % chance of mothership being around to defend for a certain time period/number of attacks. (At the moment, somehow a single MS can be in two or more places at once...) However, you should be able to indicate whether your MS is solely to be defending or attacking. At the same time, you should be able to assign your MS, and it's fleet to protect a planet as a third option, however, if this is the case it cannot be used as defence or attack at the same time.

LOOOLL... NO WAY!

-MS's desperately need to be capped at 2bill for some time. To back it up with some blatant info, technology can only go so far.. MS's do have a limit in ANY universe.

Agreed if it's meant for 2 TRIL, not bil :/

Expanding the future...
- army size cap expanded to 1billion or so planets (ok, just make it bigger, not necessarily 1bill..that was just a ball park figure as an example! It could just be an increase to 500-600mill), can raid up till say...5-550mill, buy up till 350mill. Keep plague after the 450-500mill mark, but reduce effects dramatically, and slowly increase towards the 750mill-1bill mark. (makes bigger players kicked in the balls if they don't watch their account in war times!).

Mm... army size increase is already getting there, so fail to see the point of setting a point... it's already growing towards 500 mil slowly...

- increase starting units for people, to around the 500k army size mark.

Agreed

-increase number of planets by 2 per 100mill army size. Starting at 5 if smaller than 100mill, 101mill - 200mill = 8, +2 per 100mill after that up to a maximum of 12.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- all accounts below 300k army size, that have been inactive for 2+months = removed.

Make it 6+ months and I agree

ME = no longer ranked (speed up game) - let's be honest.. you CAN easily enough compare it by posting on the forum, and it's not even properly ranked..so it's pretty much irrelevant rank wise.

Agreed

AT capacity = REDUCED significantly, to about 6k limit.

VERY much disagreed

Add an in-game alliance chat box, capable of being bought by the banked uu.

Urgh... cost+extra loading time? No thanks!

Forums

- Admins have to be, and rightly should be directly appointed by Jason, through an application and 'interview' process. One should also be voted into the position, as a voice for the players on the admin seats, however the voted admin, cannot be an alliance mate, or affiliate of one of the appointed ones (add a bit more of a political twist to the forum running, no?)

Agreed

- mods, should, by right, be re-structured and re-taught to work as a team, and a code of conduct (detailed one) should be given. Too many times I have seen mods undermining other mods and the likes, not to mention the troubles I have heard of in the mod area. better control needs to be taken of the mods, certain GM's, and spam section users in particular near enough do what they want, which, as mods, is not how it should be.

Agreed

- The Ombudsman's ACTUAL role needs to be realised more. They are not judge and jury, they are a medium of communication and basically the work horse of the admins for forum issues with regards to community complaints. (glorified PA anyone?)

----~----

So there are a few idea's. If anyone can give me some counter examples that are relevant beyond the "I don't want to loose some uu".. then please. I would very much like to hear them.

It's out there now.. they're my suggestions, and idea's to help the game and the community gain a lot more from this game.

As you can see... with forum ideas... TOTALLY agree... ingame ideas... WORTHLESS in the most cases....

[semper]

Let's break this down into things, because it's just too huge... *grumbles*

Right, over the top cheesy speech out of the way....here goes...

Suggested updates:
- New alert roles.. (cost 100 at's to switch)
Critical now = max attack's per turn = 3 full at's. (farming mode = small surgical strikes to get large naq). (45at's).
none = unlimited number of attacks, cannot be on Nox.
Can only be changed once a day. Also changes % chance of Mothership availability (also affected by recent activity, see below for further details!!!). Also reduces uu lost with no defence, inactive account for over 1 week = auto nox and critical (see later for more details!!!)

WTH do you mean by 'cost 100 ATs to switch'? You mean 100 ATs to switch realm alert??? That is frigging NUTS! If you want to destroy people without SS, there you've got your way! Most people in the game have SS, and there are plenty of ways to get it...not a good enough excuse really
With the alert you mean to max the attacks you can make yourself, or what?... And changing once per day?... *faints* Semper, what you are suggesting to kill off is the thing that makes it fun: the ability to use and slightly abuse the strategic possibilities!Not at all, it's that abuse that makes it impossible to do things. It will slow down the game and make things a lot more strategic. If you want to effectively farm everyone under the sun, you now have to be ready to put yourself at higher risk. At the same time, it mean's you cannot go and mass the crud out of someone, then run and hide behind nox and critical. If you want the first strike now, it may well cost you...
Reduce lost UU with no def? Umm... surprises me already sometimes that you cannot slaughter a whole unarmed army at once... you don't need to seek cover, only fire at will... the logic of it is already (although understandable) lost...I presume that's not directed at these points, mosty a comment ont he current game! And 1 week inactivity automatic nox and crit?... you want to kill raiding and the growth of smaller players don't ya?I want to reduce it, yes. Not necessarily KILL it... as already stated the critical would have a reduced effect to what it has now, as too would the nox, as their main function would be reducing the number of miners/uu lost when defenceless.

The problem with army sizes...
- army size dies with no defence, uu and miners/workers leave unprotected lands. (logical?)
Only lifers are 'safe', however uu -> lifer ration needs to be reduced. Same with ascension. Planets are lost in unprotected realms. = more effort in wars, but now can be very costly for someone who is being 'sat upon'. There would need to be a defence - loss ration dependent on army size. Smaller players should have to have a bigger defence to prevent loss, but bigger players will logically lose more if defenceless. For example, for every 10mill army size = 15bill defence needed, drop to 5bill defence after 100mill (meaning someone with 200mill army size will need to have 100bill defence to stop uu/miner loss, whilst a player on 100mill army size would need the same.)

*sighs* *shoots it* This is even not worth arguing, since it is THAT stupid...Why?

- The high your alert level = less loss. Nox further reduces loss, and PPT halts loss all together.

Seems logical... this time I agree

- introduce new feature = realm activity scale. This is increased by the number of hits on an account per turn up to a number out of 100 (%). The higher the %, the higher the uu/miners lost for unprotected realms (rewards activity). So lets say, literally it would take 33 full, successful attacks in the space of a turn to get it to the maximum potential loss level. These attacks only raise the % lost if the opponent has below the required defence (so you're not going to start successfully killing a 1T defence, get it to 500bill and see your opponent loosing army size a lot more than they should do).

- See 2 points back *reloads his weapons and shoots again*
Again, why?

- Up to a maximum of say.. 1% of available miners/uu PER TURN (meaning a person with 200mill army size, and a defence below 100bill would lose up to 1mill army size a turn). However, if you have say, max alertness and nox reduce this to 0.1% per turn, they would only lose 200k per turn, BUT would be unable to mass and attack back. That's just an example army size. I don't reckon you should the loss of UU feature should take effect until a player is in excess of 20mill army size.

*reloads another time* *get my point?*
Why?

A few other things...
- alliance wars must be agreed to by both alliances, when done so there is a 12 hour period before the 5 day (to be increased to 7 days) period start's. Only equal numbers can participate (and can be chosen). Alliance war's can now be won, apply UU loss feature to ALL scenario's.

Idea behind... OK. Idea itself
Why?

- Motherships now have % chance of being around for defence if you're attacking/being attacked at the same time. Similar to ascended blessing. More attacks you make = lower % chance of mothership being around to defend for a certain time period/number of attacks. (At the moment, somehow a single MS can be in two or more places at once...) However, you should be able to indicate whether your MS is solely to be defending or attacking. At the same time, you should be able to assign your MS, and it's fleet to protect a planet as a third option, however, if this is the case it cannot be used as defence or attack at the same time.

LOOOLL... NO WAY!
Why? It's logical.. Do you know anything, that without a black hole, and some nifty stuff with light, that can be at two places at once? Inform the physics world, they'd probably be pretty pleased...

-MS's desperately need to be capped at 2bill for some time. To back it up with some blatant info, technology can only go so far.. MS's do have a limit in ANY universe.

Agreed if it's meant for 2 TRIL, not bil :/Yes, it is meant to be 2T

Expanding the future...
- army size cap expanded to 1billion or so planets (ok, just make it bigger, not necessarily 1bill..that was just a ball park figure as an example! It could just be an increase to 500-600mill), can raid up till say...5-550mill, buy up till 350mill. Keep plague after the 450-500mill mark, but reduce effects dramatically, and slowly increase towards the 750mill-1bill mark. (makes bigger players kicked in the balls if they don't watch their account in war times!).

Mm... army size increase is already getting there, so fail to see the point of setting a point... it's already growing towards 500 mil slowly...Fair enough...

- increase starting units for people, to around the 500k army size mark.

Agreed

-increase number of planets by 2 per 100mill army size. Starting at 5 if smaller than 100mill, 101mill - 200mill = 8, +2 per 100mill after that up to a maximum of 12.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY...

- all accounts below 300k army size, that have been inactive for 2+months = removed.

Make it 6+ months and I agree Why?

ME = no longer ranked (speed up game) - let's be honest.. you CAN easily enough compare it by posting on the forum, and it's not even properly ranked..so it's pretty much irrelevant rank wise.

Agreed

AT capacity = REDUCED significantly, to about 6k limit.

VERY much disagreed WHY?

Add an in-game alliance chat box, capable of being bought by the banked uu.

Urgh... cost+extra loading time? No thanks!
Meant to be banked naq, lolz.. I bet that gave a few people a shock.. well the load time would be an issue, ergo it would have to be tested to ascertain the effects.

Forums

- Admins have to be, and rightly should be directly appointed by Jason, through an application and 'interview' process. One should also be voted into the position, as a voice for the players on the admin seats, however the voted admin, cannot be an alliance mate, or affiliate of one of the appointed ones (add a bit more of a political twist to the forum running, no?)

Agreed

- mods, should, by right, be re-structured and re-taught to work as a team, and a code of conduct (detailed one) should be given. Too many times I have seen mods undermining other mods and the likes, not to mention the troubles I have heard of in the mod area. better control needs to be taken of the mods, certain GM's, and spam section users in particular near enough do what they want, which, as mods, is not how it should be.

Agreed

- The Ombudsman's ACTUAL role needs to be realised more. They are not judge and jury, they are a medium of communication and basically the work horse of the admins for forum issues with regards to community complaints. (glorified PA anyone?)

----~----

So there are a few idea's. If anyone can give me some counter examples that are relevant beyond the "I don't want to loose some uu".. then please. I would very much like to hear them.

It's out there now.. they're my suggestions, and idea's to help the game and the community gain a lot more from this game.

As you can see... with forum ideas... TOTALLY agree... ingame ideas... WORTHLESS in the most cases....

lol.. so you say.. yet you fail to provide any reason.. why leads me to believe that you just don't want to face the losses in order to create a way new tactical side to the game, and bring back some measure of thought to it, rather than this endless button clicking and stubborn macho posturing. Like I said in the opening post. Give me reasons and ideas to work with. Personal opinions, created by fear of loss have no place in this thread without points to back them up!

[Cole]

And there goes another advantage for whoever strikes first in a war...now "wars" are won after first strike.What? How so? If you're on Nox, and on critical your losses will be a lot less, and generally people check the game more than once every 12 hours, so the losses won't be horrible if you're active or not lazy, and you can still strike back if you save some naq up. Not to mention Jim, with such a system in place, war's wont be so quick to start and happen because the losses will be a lot more than they once were.. Mass enemy then sabotage his/her defence and you get victory easily. As I said before, by no means it is that simple at all.. No need to declare war you just have a larger and easier victory thanks to this. Return of Dark days with one superior powerhouse massing all remaining opponents to make sure nobody can be a problem in future. Nope, nadda.. no. Your ignoring so many things, these points don't really warrant a correct reply. What about ppt's? Nox? High alert levels...the factor your opponents can be attacked back and loose things too...
As for ascension, that reminds me this aweful ascended server, which half of ascended players were dormant and on vac, because it was impossible to play it if you weren't part of a certain group. Raiding or destroying undeveloped planets that's almost the same. Well, afterall, that would be one server less for me to play lol. A little decrease of bonuses in main wouldn't be a problem compared to what would be done to ascended. And also, return of The Educators! (large defences needed for small players= interest to mass even if ME becomes unranked.

lol.. all doom and gloom eh Jim? Like I said, you did not factor in so much of it, your reply is only quarter arsed. This is what I knew would come.. it's the fear of a necessary sacrifice, makes you miss things...look over points in haste. The ascended server is racked by the so-called sniper accounts, who with this upgrade would be unable to remain where they are if they lost their army size as a consequence of it, and were unable to actively farm if they wanted to reduce that loss.

How to destroy by half a 200mil army size account in a matter of two days...reminds me slighty of this aweful ascended server where one group dominated all..

lol. I would like to know how that would happen, in two days of being on Nox and critical, with the high attack level being maintained (which would take a horrible amount of AT's to do...) a 200mill account would only loose 20mill uu. That's if they don't build a defence, don't go on ppt etc etc... so not bad at all!

Raid up till 600mil...meh again people with lots of time advantaged alot (raid limit above plague by far and trade under plague by far). The more hours you can spend clicking over and over same button the "stronger" you are...right .And cap to 1bil erm no lol.

People with lots of time SHOULD have an advantage. If they're putting that much time into the game they dam well should be rewarded for it, don't you think? If they want to waste their lives on this game, that's fine..it's their choice.. but it's not necessarily something they should be punished for ingame, but rather socially..

as said the cap to 1bill was a ball park figure, a big number thrown out there as a suggestion. The point of posting this here, is to discuss it, and edit the suggestions... Like I said elsewhere. A 500mill army sized account, if they don't watch their arse could take a truck load of loss and damage. They would need 250bill defence just to STOP the army size loss, not to mention, by the sounds of what people are saying to do with the army size limit cap...then the plague would be affecting someone around the 500mill mark in the likely-to-be-used version of this...

I disagree. It makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker. To a level which isn't acceptable.

The strong should be strong, and the weak should be weak... surely thats the point of them being strong and weak? When an account of 5mill can happily sit at rank 25k and harass an account of 200mill, there is something wrong Jim, and it should not be that way.

I disagree with 1AT= 1/15 of strike.I agree with 1/3 of losses for defender compared to now though.

Aye, I shall add them to the suggestions!


All in all though jim... I was reading your post's, and as I said earlier..all I saw was the fear of loss.

Well point by point:

-Do you forget that not everyone uses nox/crit? My example stands for people with BIG defenses and not too high income who have large covert. They don't log often as they have large def. A war breaks out like 1hr after they log out, they get massed, then they login like usually, twice a day...bam, a fair amount of their account is gone AND they can't do same to enemy (the problem is there).

-Attacked back yes, but when you will plan wars in such scenario, you'll make sure to build very big defenses to make sure strike back is very difficult while you'll sit on them. And nox/crit decrease amount of attacks, and remember, you can't attack when on it after some attacks on it. It's the advantage for those who start which is increased, thus my unagreement with it.

-Ascended server. End of snipers yes, but return of dominating group forcing others to go to vacation. I was there, I know how it was. There was limits to destruction as well, still, it was aweful.

-Raiding. Should be awarded...see the difference between trade and raid. 350mil vs 600mil, plague at 500mil=> peaceful traders never able to catch up peaceful raiders who have both accounts set the same (high UPs, active, officers giving extra up etc..).

-Your suggestion doesn't really help. It's attack planets which cause problems, I suggested something regarding them. They don't get X2 from blessing, limitated to be equal to original strike power. It just makes "snipers" as strong as they were for massing and farming. Just that large snipers are now stronger than small ones. Half solved problem.

-1AT makes strike doing 1/15 of damages? Come on! I thought we wanted to keep it a war game! Now what's going to happen? Only people with large accounts (12 planets) and large MS (max 2bil) will be able to mass properly, while rest will be burninated.
PS: I play a game where strike is *much* disadvantaged to defence, and there, like one year per month happens. Yes. ONE per MONTH. lol. Difference being, there aren't planets, so it's far from being as worse as game would be if it came in. Would have negative sides from BOTH sgw and sgaw...in other words, a pure failed game.

[BenjaminMS]

WTH do you mean by 'cost 100 ATs to switch'? You mean 100 ATs to switch realm alert??? That is frigging NUTS! If you want to destroy people without SS, there you've got your way! Most people in the game have SS, and there are plenty of ways to get it...not a good enough excuse really
Yes, but people who start out new... do you think that they all will buy SS, or be able to maintain enough time in the 1k ranks in the end with the race wars going on... I thought not.

With the alert you mean to max the attacks you can make yourself, or what?... And changing once per day?... *faints* Semper, what you are suggesting to kill off is the thing that makes it fun: the ability to use and slightly abuse the strategic possibilities!Not at all, it's that abuse that makes it impossible to do things. It will slow down the game and make things a lot more strategic. If you want to effectively farm everyone under the sun, you now have to be ready to put yourself at higher risk. At the same time, it mean's you cannot go and mass the crud out of someone, then run and hide behind nox and critical. If you want the first strike now, it may well cost you...
.... Well.... so you suggest that you'd need to be fully open with a for smaller players costly defenses and spy (in case you want to retal against an attack) because some bigger players can afford it to do that? Because THAT is what you're doing wrong Semper... you're only looking at the wishes of 100+ mil army size players... NOT at the people who aren't there yet or even don't want to be there...

you want to kill raiding and the growth of smaller players don't ya?I want to reduce it, yes. Not necessarily KILL it... as already stated the critical would have a reduced effect to what it has now, as too would the nox, as their main function would be reducing the number of miners/uu lost when defenceless.
Then follow it:... Nox + often not nutty enough to spent 6 hours per day on raiding + often no SS = slowest growth ever if you're relative new (below 50 mil army)

*sighs* *shoots it* This is even not worth arguing, since it is THAT stupid...Why?
Why? Because if you'd follow your logic, people below 20 mil would need to have over 50% of their army within def to keep their miners safe. Below 50 mil, that's still 30%-40%. Only at 100 mil and better you can keep it at the 'accepted' 20%

- The high your alert level = less loss. Nox further reduces loss, and PPT halts loss all together.

Seems logical... this time I agree

- introduce new feature = realm activity scale. This is increased by the number of hits on an account per turn up to a number out of 100 (%). The higher the %, the higher the uu/miners lost for unprotected realms (rewards activity). So lets say, literally it would take 33 full, successful attacks in the space of a turn to get it to the maximum potential loss level. These attacks only raise the % lost if the opponent has below the required defence (so you're not going to start successfully killing a 1T defence, get it to 500bill and see your opponent loosing army size a lot more than they should do).

- See 2 points back *reloads his weapons and shoots again*
Again, why?
If you are in a war, and a smaller size then *input 50/100/200 mil or better here*, it still maintains a too high cost, and a pretty high cost and long time to build up again if you're at the losing side...

- Up to a maximum of say.. 1% of available miners/uu PER TURN (meaning a person with 200mill army size, and a defence below 100bill would lose up to 1mill army size a turn). However, if you have say, max alertness and nox reduce this to 0.1% per turn, they would only lose 200k per turn, BUT would be unable to mass and attack back. That's just an example army size. I don't reckon you should the loss of UU feature should take effect until a player is in excess of 20mill army size.

*reloads another time* *get my point?*
Why? *shoots himself*

until a player is in excess of 20mill army size.

Still.... 20 mil is not much. 50 mil gives way more space to repair any damage by it.

A few other things...
- alliance wars must be agreed to by both alliances, when done so there is a 12 hour period before the 5 day (to be increased to 7 days) period start's. Only equal numbers can participate (and can be chosen). Alliance war's can now be won, apply UU loss feature to ALL scenario's.

Idea behind... OK. Idea itself
Why? In case the leadership is on vac while their members do stupid things... what then? Unless you want to get your PM box spammed up, then you're not completely, but a lot more out of options

- Motherships now have % chance of being around for defence if you're attacking/being attacked at the same time. Similar to ascended blessing. More attacks you make = lower % chance of mothership being around to defend for a certain time period/number of attacks. (At the moment, somehow a single MS can be in two or more places at once...) However, you should be able to indicate whether your MS is solely to be defending or attacking. At the same time, you should be able to assign your MS, and it's fleet to protect a planet as a third option, however, if this is the case it cannot be used as defence or attack at the same time.

LOOOLL... NO WAY!
Why? It's logical.. Do you know anything, that without a black hole, and some nifty stuff with light, that can be at two places at once? Inform the physics world, they'd probably be pretty pleased...
*scratches head* I don't want to be there in case you'd be (for example) taking some naq while not knowing being massed... stuffs up your MS big time while not knowing for a while why while being massed. It's the knowledge part that gives a bit much trouble

-MS's desperately need to be capped at 2bill for some time. To back it up with some blatant info, technology can only go so far.. MS's do have a limit in ANY universe.

Agreed if it's meant for 2 TRIL, not bil :/Yes, it is meant to be 2T

Expanding the future...
- army size cap expanded to 1billion or so planets (ok, just make it bigger, not necessarily 1bill..that was just a ball park figure as an example! It could just be an increase to 500-600mill), can raid up till say...5-550mill, buy up till 350mill. Keep plague after the 450-500mill mark, but reduce effects dramatically, and slowly increase towards the 750mill-1bill mark. (makes bigger players kicked in the balls if they don't watch their account in war times!).

Mm... army size increase is already getting there, so fail to see the point of setting a point... it's already growing towards 500 mil slowly...Fair enough...

- increase starting units for people, to around the 500k army size mark.

Agreed

-increase number of planets by 2 per 100mill army size. Starting at 5 if smaller than 100mill, 101mill - 200mill = 8, +2 per 100mill after that up to a maximum of 12.

NO,
WHYcolor]
Coz it isn't totally fair... I already notice the possibility a new 'Teachers' with your suggestions who lose even LESS then already before....

- all accounts below 300k army size, that have been inactive for 2+months = removed.

Make it 6+ months and I agree[color=red] Why?
Vacation and such things?....

ME = no longer ranked (speed up game) - let's be honest.. you CAN easily enough compare it by posting on the forum, and it's not even properly ranked..so it's pretty much irrelevant rank wise.

Agreed

AT capacity = REDUCED significantly, to about 6k limit.

VERY much disagreed WHY?
6k isn't much. It'd be done with half an hour or less

Add an in-game alliance chat box, capable of being bought by the banked uu.

Urgh... cost+extra loading time? No thanks!
Meant to be banked naq, lolz.. I bet that gave a few people a shock.. well the load time would be an issue, ergo it would have to be tested to ascertain the effects.

Forums
- Admins have to be, and rightly should be directly appointed by Jason, through an application and 'interview' process. One should also be voted into the position, as a voice for the players on the admin seats, however the voted admin, cannot be an alliance mate, or affiliate of one of the appointed ones (add a bit more of a political twist to the forum running, no?)

Agreed

- mods, should, by right, be re-structured and re-taught to work as a team, and a code of conduct (detailed one) should be given. Too many times I have seen mods undermining other mods and the likes, not to mention the troubles I have heard of in the mod area. better control needs to be taken of the mods, certain GM's, and spam section users in particular near enough do what they want, which, as mods, is not how it should be.

Agreed

- The Ombudsman's ACTUAL role needs to be realised more. They are not judge and jury, they are a medium of communication and basically the work horse of the admins for forum issues with regards to community complaints. (glorified PA anyone?)

----~----

So there are a few idea's. If anyone can give me some counter examples that are relevant beyond the "I don't want to loose some uu".. then please. I would very much like to hear them.
It's out there now.. they're my suggestions, and idea's to help the game and the community gain a lot more from this game.

As you can see... with forum ideas... TOTALLY agree... ingame ideas... WORTHLESS in the most cases....[/quote]

lol.. so you say.. yet you fail to provide any reason.. why leads me to believe that you just don't want to face the losses in order to create a way new tactical side to the game, and bring back some measure of thought to it, rather than this endless button clicking and stubborn macho posturing. Like I said in the opening post. Give me reasons and ideas to work with. Personal opinions, created by fear of loss have no place in this thread without points to back them up!

Indeed, partial it is fear. But it is also a thing of wronging the chances for smaller players even more!

[Juliette]

This thread is damn confusing with all the red and white and quote boxes.
Bah. Make it legible and more people will bother to read it.

[Tekki]

Unless I missed something, this still fails to address the current imbalance with masssing - aka that someone can mass say a 1t defence with 200k super losses - while at the same time it makes it more essential to keep that defence.

Deal wiht the imbalances in the attack versus defence then we can consider the necessity of maintaining a defence.

[semper]

ok.. firstly. Jim.

-Do you forget that not everyone uses nox/crit? My example stands for people with BIG defenses and not too high income who have large covert. They don't log often as they have large def. A war breaks out like 1hr after they log out, they get massed, then they login like usually, twice a day...bam, a fair amount of their account is gone AND they can't do same to enemy (the problem is there).

- Activity is rewarded in this system, as it should rightly be. A person with a large defence wanting to benefit from their income can use nox and critial, as stated many times the critical and nox would be significantly reduced for naq cost's and effects on actual attacks to make sure people could still farm and benefit from their naq. At the same time you could always get your opponents back. Mass their defences and sit on their accounts, keeping their UU prices high. A further point is to bring a use back for defence and make it a double edged sword. As it stands, you can currently mass someones defence with no defence yourself, then sell you weapons and your losses will be minimal at best. Whilst the person you mass, looses their defence and is constantly farmed, but can remain like that for some time at the utter mercy of someone else. To remedy any worries you have Jim, a high nox/critical could easily enough INCREASE your income (so reverse the current system for that), but at the same time it means you cannot raid and farm so easily. I think that was meant to be my original idea, it was just missed off.

meaning you can put your account in complete safe mode. Say, high nox, high critical with a 1T defence. Means you get your full income, the hightend defence issues, and a lower uu/miner loss if you have your defence lost. At the same time though, you can only make 3 attacks per turn, and if you change your position you are stuck their for a day. It will massively slow the game down, but it also means if you do mass a defence that's in that mode you will get a very nice income reward for it when it is massed. Problem solved?

-Attacked back yes, but when you will plan wars in such scenario, you'll make sure to build very big defenses to make sure strike back is very difficult while you'll sit on them. And nox/crit decrease amount of attacks, and remember, you can't attack when on it after some attacks on it. It's the advantage for those who start which is increased, thus my unagreement with it.

No, you have to remember nox and critical's primary role will be to limit the attacks you can make, they will only slow down your opponents attacks, not stop them, and even then, nat like they used too. The advantage SHOULD be with the instigator. That's the point of a first strike, the defenders though, would have 24 hours to attack back whilst the attackers could not change their alertness, meaning the counter-attack would be easier and effective.

-Ascended server. End of snipers yes, but return of dominating group forcing others to go to vacation. I was there, I know how it was. There was limits to destruction as well, still, it was aweful.

I was there also. However, it was a better system, as people could still strike back Jim, at the moment snipers have unquestioned rule and ability to strike. Perhaps the ascended idea needs more work, but I certainly think it is the basis for the way forward

-Raiding. Should be awarded...see the difference between trade and raid. 350mil vs 600mil, plague at 500mil=> peaceful traders never able to catch up peaceful raiders who have both accounts set the same (high UPs, active, officers giving extra up etc..).

Raiding is rewarded by the uu you take. That's all the reward that is needed. The more you raid, the more uu you get. Not so difficult, why does it need further reward? That's NOT the point of raiding.

-Your suggestion doesn't really help. It's attack planets which cause problems, I suggested something regarding them. They don't get X2 from blessing, limitated to be equal to original strike power. It just makes "snipers" as strong as they were for massing and farming. Just that large snipers are now stronger than small ones. Half solved problem.

No, because with the uu limitations, Snipers would be non existent. If you think about it too, it is only 2 more planets then currently allowed with the upgrades, at the same time.. with the increased army size cap, and the loss of uu/miners system, the extra two planets may help balance the loss out more and make it less dramatic.

-1AT makes strike doing 1/15 of damages? Come on! I thought we wanted to keep it a war game! Now what's going to happen? Only people with large accounts (12 planets) and large MS (max 2bil) will be able to mass properly, while rest will be burninated.
PS: I play a game where strike is *much* disadvantaged to defence, and there, like one year per month happens. Yes. ONE per MONTH. lol. Difference being, there aren't planets, so it's far from being as worse as game would be if it came in. Would have negative sides from BOTH sgw and sgaw...in other words, a pure failed game.

I said NOT as low as 1/15th, but I said it should not be as effective as 15 at's.

I answered you best I could Jim, however some of your points were a bit muddled and hard to understand their relevance.

.... Well.... so you suggest that you'd need to be fully open with a for smaller players costly defenses and spy (in case you want to retal against an attack) because some bigger players can afford it to do that? Because THAT is what you're doing wrong Semper... you're only looking at the wishes of 100+ mil army size players... NOT at the people who aren't there yet or even don't want to be there...

Could you re-type this one please. The opening statement is very muddled and makes little sense, even when consulting the previous statements. In general though, smaller players should not be able to readily harrass and hound the bigger players, it makes no sense that they should have that ability, and if they give a bigger player the reason to attack them, then yes.. they SHOULD be at a disadvantage. If someone has worked, or got to 100mill or more, then why the hell should they be given trouble by someone who puts 20% of the effort in and is 10% of the size? Thats a bloody ridiculous idea...

Then follow it:... Nox + often not nutty enough to spent 6 hours per day on raiding + often no SS = slowest growth ever if you're relative new (below 50 mil army)

SS can be achieved by getting 1000 G&R. As I have said a myriad of times, nox and critical's effects at slowing down and stopping attacks would be greatly reduced to their current standards (instead of max 5 seconds, have it max 3 seconds wait..as just an example), they would have different purposes. No one has to spend 6hours a day raiding. Even at a reduced speed you could still raid millions upon millions within an hour. I have friends that can get a mill uu in about 15mins of raiding.

Why? Because if you'd follow your logic, people below 20 mil would need to have over 50% of their army within def to keep their miners safe. Below 50 mil, that's still 30%-40%. Only at 100 mil and better you can keep it at the 'accepted' 20%

I have already stated that there would be a certain area where this would take effect and suggested that people below 20mill army size would be safe from the uu/miner loss. 50mill or so, and it's at 30-40%, so what? DONT PEE OFF the players that can kill you, or stay in pergatory. At that size you're small, it's meant to be difficult. AGAIN though, the numbers I gave were mere suggestions...don't take them as law or the literal numbers. It would need to be measured out and controlled for practicality, but at the same time, it should be higher and harder at that size, definitely so.

If you are in a war, and a smaller size then *input 50/100/200 mil or better here*, it still maintains a too high cost, and a pretty high cost and long time to build up again if you're at the losing side...

I fail to see the problem? So far, you have just moaned because it's stopping the smaller players from being a pain to the bigger players, which is logically how it should be. War should cost Benjamin, at the same time though the players need to realise it's a game and the cost is worth the entertainment! (again, points out that the numbers were given examples, not direct suggestions..)

Still.... 20 mil is not much. 50 mil gives way more space to repair any damage by it.

That's a fair suggestion, and I am open to discussing it.

In case the leadership is on vac while their members do stupid things... what then? Unless you want to get your PM box spammed up, then you're not completely, but a lot more out of options

If the leadership are 'going away', as in BOTH parties, it is logical to presume someone would be assigned the powers in their stead, not exactly rocket science. It's not mine, or the system's fault if people cannot think five seconds in front of their faces...

*scratches head* I don't want to be there in case you'd be (for example) taking some naq while not knowing being massed... stuffs up your MS big time while not knowing for a while why while being massed. It's the knowledge part that gives a bit much trouble

So you're saying that your MS dying is a warning system to being massed, for example, when you are massing? That's not a good enough excuse by any shots...when you repair your weapons you should be able to check, and if not, then you should just check your weapons more often, or leave your MS in defence. Thats just a blip in Jason's logic giving you a convenience, not a necessity.

Coz it isn't totally fair... I already notice the possibility a new 'Teachers' with your suggestions who lose even LESS then already before....

Life is not fair, it's just fairer than death. Again, it is logical that a realm with 100mill would need and posses more planets than a realm of 25mill. It also helps the later players handle the plague and the new caps, and the uu losses. As for a new group of so called 'educators', well it will be up to the more noble players to STOP them. Adds more political stuff to it.

On top of that, it's not exactly the end of the world. It's only a few planets less until you reach certain levels in army size that suggest the need for natural expansion. Finally, the game at the moment is not fair on the bigger players, smaller accounts have too much ability to hold bigger players in place through sheer stubbornness. My system IS a lot fairer and balanced to how it should be.

Vacation and such things?....

They can put their accounts in vacation mode, if they're going away for a month or more, it's not exactly a difficult thing to do...

6k isn't much. It'd be done with half an hour or less

Sorta supports my previous point. 6K is enough, people lasted for years with a smaller capacity. Just buy more when you run out! Again.. not really a good excuse.

Indeed, partial it is fear. But it is also a thing of wronging the chances for smaller players even more!

Smaller players have all the same chances to grow, it just slows down the system. At the same time, they cannot effectively wage war with a much larger player, which is how it should be.

Don't let the fear get the best of you.

Unless I missed something, this still fails to address the current imbalance with masssing - aka that someone can mass say a 1t defence with 200k super losses - while at the same time it makes it more essential to keep that defence.

Deal with the imbalances in the attack versus defence then we can consider the necessity of maintaining a defence.

Sounds like that just requires a mess around with the death ratios and calculations. I partly addressed it by the suggestion of 1at attack strength.

[[BERSERKER]]

I agree with the idea that a dramatic restructuring of the game is needed...
Then I thought good idea's never get enough support.

So here. My support.
Here's one support to be added to whatever number is needed to make something happen.

[~Insider Trader~]

I agree with the idea that a dramatic restructuring of the game is needed...
Then I thought good idea's never get enough support.

So here. My support.
Here's one support to be added to whatever number is needed to make something happen.

And I echo those sentiments too that good suggestions fall by the way side. But I still fail to see how increasing the size of accounts is going to make a skerrick of difference to the fundamental problems. You can achieve all other objectives and implement the changes discussed without increasing army sizes.

With regards to nox + critical, many non-aligned, non-constant war players must remain on critical to protect themselves from being farmed 5 times a night. We may not use it for the purpose it was intended but we damn bloody well need it in order to not wake up in the morning missing a couple of hundred thousand units, half your MS and a big weps bill. You can tell that obviously I don't like the 100 turn penalty...

I still think we need a proper solution to Tekki's thoughts on massing. Either the cost of attacking needs to rise, or the effectiveness of planets and MS's needs to be reduced. Cold hard truth and unacceptable for some but it needs to be looked into.

[semper]

I agree with the idea that a dramatic restructuring of the game is needed...
Then I thought good idea's never get enough support.

So here. My support.
Here's one support to be added to whatever number is needed to make something happen.

And I echo those sentiments too that good suggestions fall by the way side. But I still fail to see how increasing the size of accounts is going to make a skerrick of difference to the fundamental problems. You can achieve all other objectives and implement the changes discussed without increasing army sizes.

With regards to nox + critical, many non-aligned, non-constant war players must remain on critical to protect themselves from being farmed 5 times a night. We may not use it for the purpose it was intended but we damn bloody well need it in order to not wake up in the morning missing a couple of hundred thousand units, half your MS and a big weps bill. You can tell that obviously I don't like the 100 turn penalty...

I still think we need a proper solution to Tekki's thoughts on massing. Either the cost of attacking needs to rise, or the effectiveness of planets and MS's needs to be reduced. Cold hard truth and unacceptable for some but it needs to be looked into.

The changes I have suggested do several things.

They make war's costly, as they should be, add a more tactical side to the game (managing your income, uu/miner loss and alertness correctly around massings, you have to use your MS more carefully and have it placed right so it can act correctly, rather than it being in as many different places all at the same time...). It starts to cripple the imbalances of small accounts hounding the bigger accounts (reducing the power of 1at attacks, and suggested adjustment to the death ration..).

Finally, it drastically slows down the game (reduced at's, harder to raid and farm), but broadens the potential size of accounts and the available actions. So all in all.. the players will sacrifice some uu/miners and free time, for a game that will have a lot more too it, and I would bet money on, a lot more enjoyable.

EDIT: I have updated the original post to contain a suggested alteration to the attacking loss system. Like I said there though, work with me, not against me!

[BenjaminMS]

RE: the second set

Semp, it's already that Purgatory has got a restriction upon moving to it... If I'd attack someone when I am in Main, I cannot move to Purg for 24 hours... *sighs*

Main attacking... agree with that.

Note: your ideas make more sense now, I was missing at first a few things that balanced it.
About the death/def ratio... I thought at first that you meant that you needed for example 1 mil defenders per 10 mil miners (or was that what you meant).. in that case it gets kinda costly to play, certainly at lower army sizes (since bigger accounts have more reserves to take it up). If it WAS meant that way, I'd suggest to take up a reasonable rate, since 1:10 (for example) is costly getting up in the long run.

[JustinPowers]

Semp, I'm liking a lot of those suggestions but had some modifications you might consider:

1) Your suggested changes to Def Con/Nox - how about leaving them as they are for the average player, but implementing your changes for players at war? Here we would define "at war" to mean either your alliance being in a war, or you having declared war on another player and them having declared war back. It balances the game more and also makes more sense in the context of the Nox in the TV show - protecting a race while they're out waging war? Doesn't make sense to me :p

2) More planets for larger members - How about just increasing the effect of increasing your planet size? You could then, say, require a 1million army size to upgrade your planets to Normal size, 10million army for Large, etc (these are just examples). It makes sense that larger army size is needed to maintain larger planets, especially in the context of your larger army for more miners suggestion.

3) The Teachers/Educators issue - Many of you are concerned about this possibility. I wasn't around for that particular fiasco but it sounds like the concern is that a group of big players will run rampant, flattening the smaller ones. That's a concern I have - these suggestions put great power in the hands of the bigger players. A seemingly simple solution would be the formation of a group of large players determined not to let that happen. Preferably led by Semp since it's his idea that would enable such a group to form :p
This group would be essentially unpaid mercs, defending the small players for their own sense of justice, honour, or pleasure at massing a bunch of big bullies. I know this is an idealistic suggestion but there are at least some honourable big players out there and more who would just enjoy taking the big boys down a peg

[Maha Vishnu]

Unless I missed something, this still fails to address the current imbalance with masssing - aka that someone can mass say a 1t defence with 200k super losses - while at the same time it makes it more essential to keep that defence.

Deal wiht the imbalances in the attack versus defence then we can consider the necessity of maintaining a defence.

This is the crux of the argument.

It is no good adding a tail fin and go faster stripes to the sports car when the engine is only a tractor engine. (I mean real tractor engines, not the N2O ones!)

[Nobody101]

This whole idea is so complicated and adding so much to the game that lagg on turn change would be even longer it would go from being 10 15 seconds to load a page to minutes of lagg time....

Also your idea on this uu drain thing is good but your numbers are way to big like you said before some one can loose 60 mill uu in 6 hours Most of us sleep and work and go to skool and have a social life.... there should be a cap on how much you can loose per turn that is a percentage of your natural UP per turn eg you can loose 20% of your natural UP per turn this way say if you have a natural of 250k you loose 50,000 uu a turn which is way more then anyone gets from UP a turn so they will still go backwards just not so fast and given you cant have planets adding more then 50% of your natural no matter what the UP is person is gonna go backwards...

Also the ruling on perg is currently that you can't enter perg with in 24 hours of hitting an account so that part of your suggestion is already in the game. Nor can you enter with in 24 hours of ppting..

I like the idea of your MS defending your planets but i think that attacking a planet should be like attacking some one normally each attack win or loose you loose fleet... so if im massing a planet then i should be loosing fleets like i would loose attack soldiers in a normal battle and if i get the planet in one hit i should still loose fleets like i would if i was doing a normal naq hit...

Also if the planet has more then 5 times your fleets attack in defence then there should be like an over blast or something from the planet. This would blast the the opponents MS out of your galaxy for 24 hours along with destroying all its fleets and destroying all its shields.... That way planets will actually be defendable and if people don't do their homework they will wreck themselves...(if the planet has a platform on it, it looses its overblast capability, with your oppenent just loosing fleets as they attempt to mass the planet)

Raising the price on changing alert levels and all that is just silly as it will just make everyone permanently sit on nox and max alert as it is to expensive to change every time you think your at risk

[Sarevok]

I like your effort towards this game Semper, it's people like you that will keep the game afloat.

Though i agree with Tekki, fix the attack vs defense issue (i would say at least 25%, maybe more needed to hit). Then, with all these other updates, it would allow for far more dynamics, more stuff to destroy, and a more advantage with being active like most/all other games. Like origins, if you attack 3x15 every turn, then you never really loose any AT (being active = being stronger).[Also, eg WoW, if i played that 1hr/week, i think i would be far less skilled/powered then someone spending 30 hours/week]