StarGateWars Forums

so...does anyone actually want these updates?

MaxSterling wrote:I actually went to the PM admin meet last friday and about the only thing that got taken care of in that meet was admin reimbursing the accounts that got massed by AI Replicator's abused naq. 30 minutes is hardly enough time to actually discuss the new beta updates and get opinions/feedback. Beta is also not a very good indication of how good the updates are. There's maybe 25-50 people playing beta now? Of those people, how many do you think are actually testing updates. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people playing beta don't even care about the updates and are more interested in the gift naq they received so they all can play with their big motherships.

The best possible way for admin to get feedback is either to have a poll done in main or to have a separate thread for each update instead of one general overall update. This way he can see the feedback for each update and then gauge the appeal and determine if the update can/should be pushed forward.

I was active on the first meeting. I was almost alone (and people say Jason this Jason that...why the heck was I almost alone for 90% of the meeting then if people want so much to speak with admin? I recall afternoon meeting having 15-20 people asking Jason about stuff...looks like things are ok now given nobody comes to first meeting?).
----

So I spoke with admin, talked about the long existing problems, such as...Mil Exp x2 in total records bug, alliance war report bugs...and another famous "feature" that gave ridiculous advantages given its nature I see mentionned here. Now, people will have to spend on more than one planet to have crazy bonuses and have a trillion strike with 1mil supers. That reminds me of doubled banks bug in another mmorpg game, we all whinned when admins fixed those. We got used to this bug, didn't mean it was intended this way. Same for UP circles, income circles...just because it became an habit and wasn't fixed for some time and made things easier for those who used it, didn't mean it was intended that way, and was to be fixed a day or anoter. *hint* *hint* Caspain planets issue.
Accounts aren't meant to rely completly on planets. Jason never intended those to be the main power of account, just an help.

Now that's the proof Jason isn't deaf to arguemented demands. Interesting thing is I didn't mention this time most common proposal to fix those planets, which he apparently used..
People complain admin doesn't fix bugs or unnatural things but when he does they complain also...never satisfied bunch. And people wondered why Jason prefered not to change anything & admitted it openly he prefered to change nothing for a while. There we got the answer.
People are never satisfied of what he does. Yes he does mistakes sometimes, but when he corrects them, oh yes people are again here to criticize. No matter what he does people criticize. No wonders admin "never listens" as you say.

I'm testing beta. I did test lifer suicides, did sabotages to see limit, tested the houses by moving on different houses, ...
I will report to admin another bug I forgot to tell him about, absence of sabotage reports in ME. If I remember about it friday, that is.

Edit: ME seems to be fixed in the showing, I don't think in total records it's fixed, but the "total powers" of ME don't seem doubled anymore.

Theres the vocal minority we know and love!!


No wonder things are going to be so screwed up, you had 30minutes to completely skew his game view. Well at least we know who's hide to take our grieviences out of...

Wepwaet wrote:Theres the vocal minority we know and love!!


No wonder things are going to be so screwed up, you had 30minutes to completely skew his game view. Well at least we know who's hide to take our grieviences out of...

I'm curious where was the "majority" on the meeting.
Oh yes, I was alone for 25min. Meeting got extended when people joined at the end.
If people want things to evolve, maybe, just a maybe, should they attend admin meetings?

Ah well, what can one expect, when you talk with admin to fix issues, of course you are never congratulated by the "majority". By no wonder things are going to be so screwed up, you probably mean things are going to be so fixed up?
At least now ME is going to be fixed, it's already fixed in main page. That's my fault, and I'm sorry to have caused the start of fixing this bug that everyone waited for monthes.

Oh nevermind, and there I thought people complained about never fixed famous bugs like doubled ME, alliance attack bugs...

Wakko wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote:

Wepwaet wrote:Theres the vocal minority we know and love!!


No wonder things are going to be so screwed up, you had 30minutes to completely skew his game view. Well at least we know who's hide to take our grieviences out of...

I'm curious where was the "majority" on the meeting.
Oh yes, I was alone for 25min. Meeting got extended when people joined at the end.
If people want things to evolve, maybe, just a maybe, should they attend admin meetings?

Ah well, what can one expect, when you talk with admin to fix issues, of course you are never congratulated by the "majority". By no wonder things are going to be so screwed up, you probably mean things are going to be so fixed up?
At least now ME is going to be fixed, it's already fixed in main page. That's my fault, and I'm sorry to have caused the start of fixing this bug that everyone waited for monthes.

Oh nevermind, and there I thought people complained about never fixed famous bugs like doubled ME, alliance attack bugs...

Maybe if they were longer it wouldn't be an issue, some people have lives that they must attend to.

Continue to 'help' and get a few things fixed with worrying and pushing your own opinions and ideas onto Jason and i'm sure, assuming that they were the voice of everyone as well. Just like the houses maybe?

It's why admin made two meetings.
Argument "some people have lives" is null and void. I can attend those meetings because they are on friday, and I also forward request/demands to admin from people who weren't able to attend because they were unable to come.

For your info, about assuming I proposed houses (no idea why I would have proposed this) I recently got back my "real" connection at home, and before, I used "public" wifi from my internet provider...among unabilities: access irc from any server (pptwars and the other: impossible) or program (chatzilla, java, not any). So I didn't have access to admin meetings...for..hmm 3 monthes atleast since my serious real life big issues started back in december (yes, some people have lives indeed)?
So yes, sorry to have pushed my point of views to Jason, after about 3 monthes of unability to access myself admin meetings.

Again, Forum has canceled almost every afternoon meeting in the last 2 months. How can we present our ideas when the times to present them keep being removed?


And for the record im glad that he fixed the ME bug.

Im not glad he took your slanted viewpoint on planets as the "majority" opinion.

Wepwaet wrote:Again, Forum has canceled almost every afternoon meeting in the last 2 months. How can we present our ideas when the times to present them keep being removed?


And for the record im glad that he fixed the ME bug.

Im not glad he took your slanted viewpoint on planets as the "majority" opinion.

Like I said, for the planet thing, I didn't say about how fixing it (like giving precise exemple proposal settings) in this convo but mentionned it. The way he fixed it didn't really come from my mouth, it came from topics he probably got linked to and where this thing was most common way agreed by those who wanted to fix planets, without removing them or any other "extreme" fixings like I heard already.

2 meetings 8 hours apart That's an 'average' work day and I know many people who have an hour+ commute to/from work. You're just being the common-sense-less person you usually are ;)

That's probably why Jason, who always wants argumented and/or rational demands from players, listened to me?
Hehe

Empires/Houses etc...weren't really my cup of tea, not that I was totally opposed to those, but that wasn't much my interest.

About ME bug, from how it seems to be in beta: the bug was fixed...but previous doubled records remain the same: differences are that ME power got divided by two for all people, and that new recorded things into ME will not be doubled. However, total records didn't get divided by two. So if you raided 200mil uu, it still shows as 400mil. However, if you raid 10mil after update, total will be 410, not 420 (as if it was doubled 10mil).

Crying NOOOOO wrote:dont have to ascend

True. But its either loose 500 UP and 1b naq (not that much trouble for a multi), or, ascend, and get an extra 1k at when you do.

Brdavs wrote:And if your suggestion ever makes it ingame on beta I`ll be a happy pappy cos I agree.

I plan to try next meet. Being 7 days apart is a bit of a pain. And i can only make 1, due to time zone issues.

GeneralChaos wrote:+1 for sniper accounts bravo.

I had no idea snipers were such a problem for you guys. Though if we use some version of

Tekki wrote:so how about something to even out the snipering and that will affect everyone - killable attacks supers (without the blood realm)

I think the main issue would be resolved yes? Such that when they attack you, rather then only being able to sab them, you can also kill their attack units.

Brdavs wrote:[spoiler]Its a good idea to give lone wolfs a perk imo. It`s just amusing that atm there is more gameplay incentive to be outside an alliance than in one. Outside? 10% on att/def. In one? Basically a 1% income penalty. wua wua Wuaaaaaa [/spoiler]

You forget the added benefit of another 20-odd players covering your back. As a lone wolf, especially without a CO, there is no one to see you being attacked. In an alliance that is vigilant, they would see the attacks against you, and be able to help out in some way.

Wepwaet wrote:Aparently you have enough time on your hands to troll/respond to each persons post even when they are not directed at you.

Yes i do. Uni lectures are not as exciting as picking on people by yourself

Wepwaet wrote:[spoiler]A forced NAP with those in your house is a bad idea. Every alliance has farmers in it and your basicly putting the breaks on friendly farming. Because people DO NOT want that they will look to control the houses with the least amount of people necessary so as to limit the number of people they can't farm.
You see? Its not wanted BUT if it goes live then thats the end result.[/spoiler]

Ok. So a better idea would be some indication that their in your house? Sort of like *alliance friendly on the battle field page? So you know your farming your own house. But if you've been asked to, then it's all good

Wepwaet wrote:No where in there did I say that I dislike the lone wolf bonuses.

No true. I apologise. I guess i just took your statement to say that it was a bad idea, in that it would force appart small alliances to get better benifits.

Wepwaet wrote:[spoiler]The bonuses do however make it more economicial for mid-small range alliances to disband and tag themselves in an alternative way(no formal ingame alliance) and gain a better bonus set than alliances controlling either the Chaos or Order houses AND they don't have the added disadvantage of not being able to attack anyone in their house.[/spoiler]

Whist it would give them a boost yes. They are unable to monitor each other with the attack log. So whilst your alliance member is being massed offline, you have no idea, apart from a slowly shrinking army size, and a quick drop in rank. But no idea whom did it, till they come.

Wepwaet wrote:Theres no reason they shouldn't be short ended like the rest of us when it comes to who they can and can't attack.

So like i said before. Have an indication like alliance friendly, instead of a forced NAP?

Wepwaet wrote:Second part of your response:
Obviously your just swinging in the dark hoping to slap your own groups label on me. Unfortunately you don't reaslize exactly how many afternoon meets have been canceled in the last 1-2 months, do you?

Nope, because i don't go to that one. Since i'd rather not be up at like 8am on a Saturday morning. Over the past 1-2 month, the morning meet has been cancelled like 2x. So since i'm not apart of the group i seem to be slapping the label on, what does that mean?

Wepwaet wrote:The few times he's made it to those meets I have given my opinions and facts/data to back them up. Like I said though, its the vocal minority, who want everything handed to them on a silver platter, who benifit from the planet update.

[/quote]Did you offer a different approach? Or just show why it was a bad idea. And i think the planet update is in reference to people whom don't merlin a planet, have theirs taken, then complain about how they do? Why not just change your approach. Rather then a super-large planet, get several smaller ones. As people keep saying "Planets were never meant to be kept". This just improves this rule people seem to like. Rather then being able to keep a super-large planet, you now need to take the risk. Have several planeta that give the same bonus, and risk them being lost, or build your realm, to maximise the planet, without smaller ones to distribute over.

Andariel wrote:[spoiler]these updates seem to get worse and worse...
changing the planet feature will only benefit the cash spenders as "legit" players cant protect more than 1-2 good planets whilst cash spenders can hold as many as they want.[/spoiler]

I don't spend cash on the game, and i used to have 10 100kUP planets. I agree, it's harder, but then again, your not loosing money when something is taken.

Andariel wrote:also i agree that lone wolf looks like the way to go in the future.

Yes, because the idea of having no one covering your back is promising. I don't see how 5% in 1 area, and 10% in another, is better then your alliance covering you.

MaxSterling wrote:[spoiler]The best possible way for admin to get feedback is either to have a poll done in main or to have a separate thread for each update instead of one general overall update. This way he can see the feedback for each update and then gauge the appeal and determine if the update can/should be pushed forward.[/spoiler]

I agree with you Max. But then again, it's only about 10% of the game that use the forum, and probably only 5% come here. Though it would be better then those whom can fit in an hour window once a week.

Wakko wrote:[spoiler]Lmao, Jason does not like to be told that his grand ideas won't work, he tends to get a bit ...'Snippy' you could say towards people who even hint that the updates arn't what people want[/spoiler]

Didn't seem to mind when i told him the AT reduction was a bad idea.

Leg Apophis wrote:[spoiler]I was active on the first meeting. I was almost alone (and people say Jason this Jason that...why the heck was I almost alone for 90% of the meeting then if people want so much to speak with admin? I recall afternoon meeting having 15-20 people asking Jason about stuff...looks like things are ok now given nobody comes to first meeting?).[/spoiler]

They prob go to the evening meet. I've noticed it pretty quite at the AM one. I once had him to myself as well lol

Leg Apophis wrote:[spoiler]Now that's the proof Jason isn't deaf to arguemented demands. Interesting thing is I didn't mention this time most common proposal to fix those planets, which he apparently used..
People complain admin doesn't fix bugs or unnatural things but when he does they complain also...never satisfied bunch. And people wondered why Jason prefered not to change anything & admitted it openly he prefered to change nothing for a while. There we got the answer.
People are never satisfied of what he does. Yes he does mistakes sometimes, but when he corrects them, oh yes people are again here to criticize. No matter what he does people criticize. No wonders admin "never listens" as you say[/spoiler].

Thats the thing. People were complaining about the planet glitch/bug that was never intended. Now he's fixed it, he's done the wrong thing...

Wepwaet wrote:Theres the vocal minority we know and love!!
No wonder things are going to be so screwed up, you had 30minutes to completely skew his game view. Well at least we know who's hide to take our grieviences out of...

And where were you that fine meet?

Wakko wrote:Maybe if they were longer it wouldn't be an issue, some people have lives that they must attend to.

Maybe, just maybe, Jason does as well

Wakko wrote:[spoiler]Continue to 'help' and get a few things fixed with worrying and pushing your own opinions and ideas onto Jason and i'm sure, assuming that they were the voice of everyone as well. Just like the houses maybe?[/spoiler]

Well, why don't you turn up and argue against Leg Apophis

Wepwaet wrote:[spoiler]Again, Forum has canceled almost every afternoon meeting in the last 2 months. How can we present our ideas when the times to present them keep being removed?[/spoiler]

1) Get someone to express the view for you at the AM meet?
2) Make the AM meet?

Wakko wrote:[spoiler]2 meetings 8 hours apart That's an 'average' work day and I know many people who have an hour+ commute to/from work. You're just being the common-sense-less person you usually are [/spoiler]

Wow good stuff. Insult is much better then suggestion a change in one of the times...

"Fixing" the planets is so much more important than fixing the snipers that never have anything killable.

How about Jason listens to someone that actually plays the game the way it was meant to be played (has a defense close (hell, I'll take half) to their strike) and not a nub sniper?

Lost Legends for the sniper alliance of the year.

Well off you go then

Sniping is as much a tactic as having a single large planet/dual or 2 to offset losses. Both are used to make less losses, just take different ways. I don't believe there is any good way to eliminate either of them without changing a lot of how the game is played. I know a member of EPA has constantly wished for kill-able UU, which is an extreme end of what some say (kill-able attack), though not that long ago AC wasn't kill-able.

I must say, a new thing I've noticed is one of my favorite updates:

PURCHASE ALLIANCE GIFTS
Plus One Hour PPT Entire Alliance for 1,000,000,000 Naq.

This could give some strategy to the game about having leaders who are active, able to set ppt if they notice their group is getting massed, though at its current amount it seems a bit low, as only 50 bil a turn Income would allow your alliance to be on ppt indefinitely. I think something like 6 hours worth of PPT per 1 month of a normal alliances Income might be a closer value. It also would be interesting if it adds to the previous amount (kinda like merlins)or if you have to do it every hour (kinda like ppt ends).

Then:

House Wars
Each house has a natural enemy (and said enemy is an enemy back...). This creates a '2 way war' equivalent, whereby if player 1 in house 1 attacks player 2 in house 2, and the houses are enemies, it is a 2way war scenario, with double damage, double gains from battle. And avoids certain protections like Nox.
Likewise, one cannot attack a voting member of their own house.

This seems like it would more force groups to take over 2 houses to protect themselves and provide friendly farming, rather then creating necessary interactions/wars.

This next part I may be a bit bias, however making attack soldiers killed worth more then defense makes sense and would lower the ability to mass for M/E, yet:

# PlanetDef Killed=300
# MS Fleet Killed=200
# MS Weap Killed=300
# MS Shield Killed=300

I feel that planet defenses and fleets should both be worth more then what they are, fleets cost 10x shields or weapons, yet get 2/3 of the M/E if you kill them? Then planets, they cost 30x shields or weapons, yet get the same M/E if you kill them. Also, I don't believe fleets count if they are killed by being destroyed by your a platform, which should also be included.

I -thought- the purchase alliance gift came out of the alliance bank which doesn't refill that fast. Though I admit I haven't checked in Beta.

The only reason I can make the second admin meeting is that the meetnigs got moved to a Friday. If they got moved again to another day (not that anyone is suggesting that) I couldn't make either. I can't make the first one though since that's like 2am my time and I'm not that dedicated.

I don't think anyone is arguing that sniping is a valid way of playing just at hte moment it's about the only viable way of playing hence my belief that something needs to be done to allow either super sabbing on attack weapons or killing attack soldiers without blood realm AND balance up the cost of attack and defence weapons and planet bonuses. Why are attack weapons cheaper?

BMMJ13 wrote:[spoiler]Sniping is as much a tactic as having a single large planet/dual or 2 to offset losses. Both are used to make less losses, just take different ways. I don't believe there is any good way to eliminate either of them without changing a lot of how the game is played. I know a member of EPA has constantly wished for kill-able UU, which is an extreme end of what some say (kill-able attack), though not that long ago AC wasn't kill-able.[/spoiler]

I agree in principle. Except that, planets are more liable, and will take up MTs to protect. Whereas snipers don't need to spend MTs protecting them, and can just use the MTs for more AT

I must say, a new thing I've noticed is one of my favorite updates:

BMMJ13 wrote:[spoiler]

PURCHASE ALLIANCE GIFTS
Plus One Hour PPT Entire Alliance for 1,000,000,000 Naq.

This could give some strategy to the game about having leaders who are active, able to set ppt if they notice their group is getting massed, though at its current amount it seems a bit low, as only 50 bil a turn Income would allow your alliance to be on ppt indefinitely. I think something like 6 hours worth of PPT per 1 month of a normal alliances Income might be a closer value. It also would be interesting if it adds to the previous amount (kinda like merlins)or if you have to do it every hour (kinda like ppt ends).[/spoiler]

Does that include 2IC? Cause if it doesn't i think it should. So it's not always the Leaders job to be on all the time, checking the alliance logs.
Also, what Tekki said is right. If it is only 1B naq. Thats only 100b/turn the alliance has to make. Perhaps should be more like 1T, and only doable like 3x/week.

BMMJ13 wrote:[spoiler]This next part I may be a bit bias, however making attack soldiers killed worth more then defense makes sense and would lower the ability to mass for M/E, yet:

# PlanetDef Killed=300
# MS Fleet Killed=200
# MS Weap Killed=300
# MS Shield Killed=300

I feel that planet defenses and fleets should both be worth more then what they are, fleets cost 10x shields or weapons, yet get 2/3 of the M/E if you kill them? Then planets, they cost 30x shields or weapons, yet get the same M/E if you kill them. Also, I don't believe fleets count if they are killed by being destroyed by your a platform, which should also be included.[/spoiler]

Perhaps Naq for points more so? Like fleets cost 22m each, and weapons/shields 2m each. So each fleet should be 2000? Also because you have to reduce their power to 0, they aren't instantly wiped out like weapons/shields

Tekki wrote:I -thought- the purchase alliance gift came out of the alliance bank which doesn't refill that fast. Though I admit I haven't checked in Beta.

It would fill pretty quick. If you have 20 players, whom get 20b/turn. If they are all on PPT, that's 400b/turn, which is 4b/turn to the alliance bank.

Tekki wrote:The only reason I can make the second admin meeting is that the meetings got moved to a Friday. If they got moved again to another day (not that anyone is suggesting that) I couldn't make either. I can't make the first one though since that's like 2am my time and I'm not that dedicated.

I'm a stay up till 2am for the meet person lol
But yes, Friday/Saturday is probably the better day of the week.

Tekki wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that sniping is a valid way of playing just at the moment it's about the only viable way of playing hence my belief that something needs to be done to allow either super sabbing on attack weapons or killing attack soldiers without blood realm AND balance up the cost of attack and defence weapons and planet bonuses. Why are attack weapons cheaper?

And make defences further more effective then they are. Max had a good suggestion. If you have your realm alert up, then what ever % of income you loose, gets put into maintaining defence weapons. Like if you have it set at critical (70%), then your weapons only take 30% of the normal damage. Though unit deaths are the same, so that defences don't become impenetrable

i d like to add smth regarding sniping players.

that tactic , except sinpe farmers, came live somewehere +2 years ago as NATURAL ENEMY OF CASH PLAYERS, when this second category decided to own the game. bit by bit Jason is limiting free play style and giving easy life to cash players as i discovered in "abandon/find dual"

to others i d say better work for to ease the game instead of makin it complex.
a complex game wont attract many players, and some that already are not very active would give up due to many changes.

hell easy the game fun it is.

Sarevok wrote:

Tekki wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that sniping is a valid way of playing just at the moment it's about the only viable way of playing hence my belief that something needs to be done to allow either super sabbing on attack weapons or killing attack soldiers without blood realm AND balance up the cost of attack and defence weapons and planet bonuses. Why are attack weapons cheaper?

And make defences further more effective then they are. Max had a good suggestion. If you have your realm alert up, then what ever % of income you loose, gets put into maintaining defence weapons. Like if you have it set at critical (70%), then your weapons only take 30% of the normal damage. Though unit deaths are the same, so that defences don't become impenetrable

Actually that still makes defences impenetrable except with a higher strike and makes people completely and utterly unmassable. If you are on nox and critical and have no outstanding attacks, your weapons can be massed but it takes almost all of the 600 odd ATs to do it but let's say you have 2million defence supers, you are likely to have lost only 800k-1m of them. Adn with the current death rates, you aren't losing that many per hit by that stage. Especially if you have mercs.

Now if you reduce the weapon damage to 30% of the normal amount and the individual has nox and critical on then it is going to take approximately 2000 ATs to mass the individual and a LOT more time since nox only reduces to allow 45 ATs to be used each turn. So... lemme see... That's 2000 turns to mass, and you use 600 in the first turn to phase them, and then can only use 45ATs each turn after that to continue to mass them... that's going to take 16.5 HOURS or 33 turns to mass them - before you even safely AC them.

So even with killing the UU off, you could potentially take them down to 79 supers, holding 2million weapons (though you won't) and the waepons can be safely repaired which makes it pointless. Like I said, reducing the damage to 30% makes an individual unmassable, which in wars, gives the side that strikes first a very hefty advantage. So no, Max's suggestion is a -really- bad idea. (Where is it actually posted so I can rebut it properly?)

Better to kill strike units which applies EQUALLY to everyone and to give sabbing a distinct advantage on strike weapons as that is the only way of destroying them.