Page 23 of 55
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:45 pm
by wmd9999
congrats forum hope you child is born healthy and happy!
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:52 pm
by Forum
tolan it is

oh wait, i just got veto'd again....
swat team wrote:I will be just as happy with whatever changes you will be making and not whine about fair and unfair changes. The Point is you are trying to make the game better and more fair across the board. I am just happy to have the privalage to be able to Play such a great game. Thank You Jason, Good Luck!!!!!!
Boy Names: my sons name is Carter Thomas, have a cousin named Bryce McCay, and another named Tolan Rule oh wait that last one isn't a name it is the TRUTH lol

"Tolan Rule" LMAO
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:54 pm
by High Empty
well as a present for you forum
Mojo Rising has been descended as a result of the battle!!!
P.S i'm out of turns
So if you want me to descend, ETL aswell you better send about 200. If i get them i'll take it as a sign from above that i'm doing divine work.

Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:24 pm
by unification
congrats forum!
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:29 pm
by Brdavs
SGW as a whole is on a very important turnpoint. You`re tying unbalanced as heck ascended closer to a nicely working main. A stupid/rash update here may end this succes story... Those refusing to bother (much) with ascended stick around for main. Turn main into ascended v2.0 by overly tying them together and see them walk. IMHO that is...
So I applaud Forum for stepping back and not rushing headstrong into an update just cos he`s being pressured (by both sides).
Ascended doesnt need so many updates anyways... it needs a DD OE war ;P
And congrats to foum!

Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:16 pm
by Robe
Congratulations Jason
Boys are so much fun (biased mum of two boys)
Also, good to hear there will be no rushing these changes.
I agree with Brdavs, the game is at a significant turning point.
We need to look to the future without dwelling on the past.
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:19 pm
by TheRook
Forum wrote:Page 20 of 22
--am still reading through. the goal of the update is not to make descension easier -just to make 'actions' more equal...
ok -this update may take longer than i thought... but - i will do it best i can and not rush any one decision. i will give all comments thought....
also - today i found out i am having another son... (we knew we were having a kid, just not male/female till today)...
all is healthy, and looking good... early 2008 i will be a father of 2...
why i mention? well 1) any father would. and 2) explains where i was today

chat as usual tomorrow - we can talk ascension if anyone wants. coding goes on, but i will be using the feedback very actively and do not assume what is put in dev is final --based on YOUR comments....
cheers
jason.
(ps - any good original boy names anyone?? wife & I are having constant arguments now

)
Not that I'm jumping on the Band Wagon but I'm having a boy too around about the 12th of January 08

Hurray!

Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:36 pm
by Forum
i hope you name him 'forum'

congrats!! we have a very close chance of same birthday kids... 5 days diff...
(and no - i would not consider you jumped the same bandwagon i did to have a kid on same day

)
TheRook wrote:Not that I'm jumping on the Band Wagon but I'm having a boy too around about the 12th of January 08

Hurray!

Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:57 pm
by KGC
Good names:
Classics: David, John, Jack, Vincent, Patrick, Daniel
Original: O'Neill, Carter, Teal'c, Tyr, Thor, Worf
Hope it helps
P.S. Basing cost on max life is a bad idea, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:57 pm
by Ergon
=o 12 of jan.. my bday is 11th

Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:26 am
by Forum
KGC wrote:Good names:
Tyr
P.S. Basing cost on max life is a bad idea, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
1) i like.
2) what you base it on? it HAS to go up...
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:30 am
by wmd9999
on updates will they all be put in at once or as one becomes ready that one will go in? asking as i am planning an ascension at the end of this month but will wait until the APP rate changes.
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:57 am
by chargin
Forum why does it have to go up? that is going to make everyone who still doesn't have their techs high really expensive to get them. If you are going to base it on something to do with power, why not just base it on rank?

Or charisma and planets...something like the ranking formula would be good lol.
APP>Life force has to go up because with the new rates a top ascended account is still worth 20 main accounts when converting to LF, and a huge 200 main accounts if you want DMU all of which can be converted into main resources if you find enough people that want it. This is because there are no caps in ascension but there are in main, without the SW there will be absolutely no way to get the top accounts unless they attack each other. To make it the APP to Life force self corrects, compare the top incomes in main verse ascension so that a ascended account is only worth a little bit more than a main account (if it simply must be more)!
PS: if people can descend mojo, i'd be a bit worried about who else they can attack unless mojo hasn't bothered at all with his personal def skills. If descending is too easy there will be loads of it as soon as the updates come out and there will be people whining about it all over the forum (rightfully so too!) You should make it so that if you attack somebody and remove 50% of their life force, you should lose at least 25% of yours! Basically you take at least 50% of the damage u inflicted to them in proportion to max life force. This prevents people going on a descending spree!
PS: Call him Martin or Daniel, not original but hey i like them.

Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:00 am
by KGC
Forum wrote:KGC wrote:Good names:
Tyr
P.S. Basing cost on max life is a bad idea, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
1) i like.
2) what you base it on? it HAS to go up...
My earlier post:
KGC wrote:In stead of DMU-> LF is 10,000,000 * 1+maxlifeforce level /100, why not use DMU-> LF is 10,000,000 * (1+((charisma+production )/200)) (or a similar variation)
As most people know charisma and production are the 2 most important stats for growth. This won't change unless you make LF gained through chanelling and flow a lot better, and raise the max life
Whether you square it or not is up to you of course, but I would suggest you make the effect even less than that.
Last thing, I would prefer no changes to the DMU->LF conversion, but if I have to choose between a cap and this I would choose this
An alternative would be to base it on all levels, with varying weights, or on a sum of LF spent on all levels
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:24 am
by Ergon
why dont we have a cap.. like GW (guild wars)
then the best will survive!