Page 5 of 8
Re: Calculations
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:54 pm
by Duderanch
Normal (naq investment wise) inc/up planets aren't a problem, same as normal (naq investment wise) att/def planets aren't a problem.
Crazy big income planets are just as 'bad for the game' as big attack planets. At least with attack planets you have to farm/mass people for them to be effective. Huge income planets make people a lot of naq without any effort.
Before war I was making 720b/turn with main account while farming 100t+/day on NGM, if that's not broken I don't know what is...
Re: Calculations
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:59 pm
by ~Dä Vinci~
Duderanch wrote:Normal (naq investment wise) inc/up planets aren't a problem, same as normal (naq investment wise) att/def planets aren't a problem.
Crazy big income planets are just as 'bad for the game' as big attack planets. At least with attack planets you have to farm/mass people for them to be effective. Huge income planets make people a lot of naq without any effort.
Before war I was making 720b/turn with main account while farming 100t+/day on NGM, if that's not broken I don't know what is...
such a small amount of naq compared to what is thrown into these accounts, and it would take months/years to catch up. Economically up/income planets create raid farm and normal farms so reducing them would only slow down the players that aren't willing to part with there $. Att/def planet only benefit the user not anyone else like inc/up and it's always effective compared to inc/up which relies on a defence to keep naq, enough miners and defence to stop being raided.
I can't understand how you think having planets that are able to make 5-10m weps in an 18t strike/def acceptable? No way would inc/up planets every turn in enough naq to get anywhere close to this figure within the next year and that's also 1 year for them planets to get even bigger.
The truth is we are to far behind and that gap is only getting bigger which is causing a negative affect on the server wars/morale and overall playing style.
Your solutions of decaying planets aren't a nerf which is needed it's just a simple hindrance that can be overcome by building them back up (if read correctly). You have to solve the problem at the source, they will still be affective but not to the point it makes building defences pointless. And saying 'ow just build 120t defence because my att/def planets won't make much of a difference' double strike goes and throws that out the windows.
Re: Calculations
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:06 pm
by Mathlord
Yeah the increased income/uu on the market helped to level the playing field so people without a huge wallet could at least be in the same ballpark...even by really cheapening the cost of naq outside the game so if you only had a little to spend, it could go a pretty long way.
Having 700 bil a turn income is indeed crazy too I grant you that. At least though the impact of those huge incomes and up's is only tangential to front line fighting...a unit production of 5-10 mil will not swing an online battle. Same with a large income. The overall inflation of stats and income/deflation in value of sgw commodities are probably both part of the much bigger problem, but we could have a whole economics class on that.
Short of removing black market merlins and actually making planets conquerable (as it really should be but unlikely will ever be), we have to keep doing this nerfs and corrections over the years to maintain parity among accounts and prevent one stat from overpowering others.
Re: Calculations
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:26 pm
by Neimenljivi
Tetrismonkey wrote:[spoiler]
Neimenljivi wrote:I can understand why especially attack and def duals might be a problem, but how the hell do income and UP planets represent a problem? All they do is enable a regular player who can't spend 10h a day raiding/farming still partly keep up with the majority of players. But that means the regular player spends months or years to build up their planets to that point, as well as months and years to build up the defences for planets.
Point is - $penders will always have a significant advantage over others, because the game allows buying resources for $. Whatever you do, they're going to adapt. The only difference is that they will adapt within a month's salary, while non $ players will need a year or more to catch up to where they were before the change compared to the $ players. So all you'll do is create a situation where the $ players might need a month to regain their supremacy, but once they do, they'll have a trouble-free 12 months before regular players catch up to pose the same threat they posed before the change. If anything, the $ players will have a bigger advantage for a year. Or remind me what happened during the sudden shift to importance of sabbing?
If you really want to limit the advantage of $ players, like c2 mentioned, close the black market for the majority of the year. That will make resources harder to come by and thus $ players won't have infinite resources at their disposal.
~N
[/spoiler]
Your point is mute, even if I agree that the Income/Up duals help, as you do nothing but sell the naq and UU you generate. You contribute to the problem.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
So despite being right I should be ignored? And so should every one who spends $ or makes $ through this game? Whose opinion, beside your own which is always of the utmost importance apparently, actually counts then?
I think the problem is straight head-on massing. That is mostly limited to stats planets. Yes 700b incomes are huge, but imagine how much naq it took to make that income as huge as it is. You're looking at return rates of over a year or a year and a half, and that's assuming you can keep 100% of your income all the time. Not to mention you need a way to protect these planets. So after you build a 700b income you have to wait at least a year and a half to get the naq you invested back. If you didn't invest that naq into income planets but rather into a MS or covert levels that'd be something that would have harmed the game even further, as MSs and covert levels already cost enormous amounts of resources and new players, without using money, will never catch up on their own as it is. If someone invests that much naq into income, other people have at least a year and a half to catch up that deficit in naq.
I would totally agree if a planet that makes 2T a day had a 5 days return rate (naq involved/naq received) that income planets should get nerfed along with other planets (and same goes for UU planets), but you do the maths on return rate of making a 2T income planet. And even if you have 10 x 2T income planets, you won't be making 700b/turn.
~N
Re: Calculations
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:55 pm
by Dexter Morgan
LOVE THE SIG and the record on quantum.
Do you use mudkips for mercs or nyan rainbow cats?
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:57 am
by Am Heh
scrap planets all together
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:03 am
by Heisenberg
Am Heh wrote:scrap planets all together
Although i agree, never gonna happen.
This game still goes on hugely down to the buying of merlins. Lets face it, there are a good few people spending plenty of $$ to hide all of their planets. Remove all planets, remove the source of very valuable income.
I do believe it needs to be changed. The divide seems to be becoming larger and larger.
Ratio's are needed for the planets however i feel MS's should remain the same. I believe catching up on massive MSs is possible due to the forever increasing price.
Now with planets is a bit different due to needing them protecting which not everyone can afford to do.
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:09 am
by Am Heh
That's the problem, thinking about $$ and not balance. That was caused this problem in the first place.
Changing the ratios, wont really change that much. Ok it will cost a bit more UU, but UU is cheap.
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:49 am
by Mental
How about new more powerful weapons that maybe cost more, But produce more power to the point where a few trill from a planet/mothership doesn't make that much difference
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:55 am
by teesdale
Mental wrote:How about new more powerful weapons that maybe cost more, But produce more power to the point where a few trill from a planet/mothership doesn't make that much difference
witch is screwing with the ratios of everything i the server, effectivly making planets petty trash... nerfing them would do exactly the same thing, lol
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:58 am
by Zod14c
Am Heh wrote:scrap planets all together
Agreed
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:06 pm
by High Empty
Neimenljivi wrote:Neimenljivi wrote:
Your point is mute, even if I agree that the Income/Up duals help, as you do nothing but sell the naq and UU you generate. You contribute to the problem.
So despite being right I should be ignored? And so should every one who spends $ or makes $ through this game? Whose opinion, beside your own which is always of the utmost importance apparently, actually counts then?
I think the problem is straight head-on massing. That is mostly limited to stats planets. Yes 700b incomes are huge, but imagine how much naq it took to make that income as huge as it is. You're looking at return rates of over a year or a year and a half, and that's assuming you can keep 100% of your income all the time. Not to mention you need a way to protect these planets. So after you build a 700b income you have to wait at least a year and a half to get the naq you invested back. If you didn't invest that naq into income planets but rather into a MS or covert levels that'd be something that would have harmed the game even further, as MSs and covert levels already cost enormous amounts of resources and new players, without using money, will never catch up on their own as it is. If someone invests that much naq into income, other people have at least a year and a half to catch up that deficit in naq.
I would totally agree if a planet that makes 2T a day had a 5 days return rate (naq involved/naq received) that income planets should get nerfed along with other planets (and same goes for UU planets), but you do the maths on return rate of making a 2T income planet. And even if you have 10 x 2T income planets, you won't be making 700b/turn.
Neimenljivi
[/quote]
please thing of this quote in terms of Attack and defense planets,
IT will take alot of massing to pay off the INVESTMENT of the naq spent into it, So rather the someone buying 100mil supers, and then 100 mil weapons and repairing them they are investing Quads of naq ahead of time to make their ratio's better!
Again i'll go with my 2 preferred options
1, Make changing from Planets cheaper, $$ wise and more expensive Time wise, so that non $ players can change their account setup during war, and when the war is over turn them back to Passive systems of income.
2. Increase the Cap's This will reduces the effect of planets on Large accounts that are building big defenses and getting them removed, so "Peace time farming Attack planets won't be useful" However the 3-25th massing during a war they will be useful. But you need to Alter Naq production so you don't have run away inflation!
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:31 pm
by High Empty
The forces of High Empty rush in full force, and inflict 43,253,809,021,700 damage on Surtr's forces!
It was confirmed that 57,957 of Surtr's forces fell at the hands of High Empty's assult.
The forces of Surtr fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 7,489,123,468,660 damage on High Empty's forces!
They managed to eradicate 81,199 of High Empty's troops.
Before we get too into ratios
so for a 5.7 ATTACK to DEFENSE... I'm looking at loosing 50% more attack troops
and you wonder why i have planets!
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:37 pm
by ~Dä Vinci~
High Empty wrote:The forces of High Empty rush in full force, and inflict 43,253,809,021,700 damage on Surtr's forces!
It was confirmed that 57,957 of Surtr's forces fell at the hands of High Empty's assult.
The forces of Surtr fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 7,489,123,468,660 damage on High Empty's forces!
They managed to eradicate 81,199 of High Empty's troops.
Before we get too into ratios
so for a 5.7 ATTACK to DEFENSE... I'm looking at loosing 50% more attack troops
and you wonder why i have planets!
now post some ones with 1m losses to attacker 50k to you and attacking wise
Re: Calculations
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:42 pm
by Duderanch
High Empty wrote:The forces of High Empty rush in full force, and inflict 43,253,809,021,700 damage on Surtr's forces!
It was confirmed that 57,957 of Surtr's forces fell at the hands of High Empty's assult.
The forces of Surtr fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 7,489,123,468,660 damage on High Empty's forces!
They managed to eradicate 81,199 of High Empty's troops.
Before we get too into ratios
so for a 5.7 ATTACK to DEFENSE... I'm looking at loosing 50% more attack troops
and you wonder why i have planets!
Baring in mind that was us both ABing with half my defense coming from planets
