Page 49 of 55
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:07 am
by xtreme192
Timmy wrote:ok i got a big post with a lot of ideas..
some radical changes that some may like or dislike and am not 100% certain about the rates and such but heres some ideas which involve compromise which you speak so much about
1. Fleets atm increase at 60k and every 10k after that.
how about if they stay the same increase till 100k then they have a major increase the the current cost for fleet 100,001.
so instead of having a big jump in price at 60k it would be a huge jump at 100k. so in effect it would be easier to get your up increased as a pose to the cost the big people endured.
2. leave all costs for the power ups the same as what they currently are bar charisma/production.
leave soft caps at 500/700.
make the cost for levels 0-250 in charisma 0-350 in production half price. Then over levels 250-500 charisma 350-700 for production bridge the gap in price created to the current ones so at 500 you are paying what the current prices are for charisma and 700 for production. effectively making the first half of the cap easier to get to then it is moderately easier until it becomes the same.
This boosts growth for the small then levels out the field to the big guys.
Not 100% sure on the percentages they were just a rough estimate.
3. small guys want raid to stay some big people want initiate revolution to stay. perhaps set a cap at 5mil planets where under 5 you can raid but not initiate revolution and over 5mil its the other way around.
also make it more costly to do initiate revolution.
big guys couldn't initiate revolution to guys under 5mil and little guys cant raid those over 5mil.
4. Vacation.
with the updates and ideas floating about with ppt on ascension make vacation lose all bonuses on main and no blessing as if you're active up there you should hit vacation to stop being descended or raided anymore and there are idea in place for small trips so i think this idea would be good. encourage those that don't play to play.
Timmy
this seems fair to me, especially the raid revolution bit, also means a larger player cant team up with a small one to bring them over 5mill by hitting reasonable (average) size player
vac mode, yeah, u shouldnt need your bonuses in main while on vac in ascension (says me who is currently on vac in asc and not in main (trip got cancled at last min)) as u should either be on ppt or vac mode in main too. this is much better because of main ppt than linking vac in main and asc
powerups i think this is a reasonable comprimise
fleets, personally have no opinions about this although if our powerups are made slightly cheeper, i can see no prob to allow the bigger players to increace their fleets cheaper. although i think some of them might want some sort of compensation for the extra dmu they have invested busting through the 60k cap, and i cant see a problem with that either
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:15 am
by Nostradamus
Timmy wrote:ok i got a big post with a lot of ideas..
some radical changes that some may like or dislike and am not 100% certain about the rates and such but heres some ideas which involve compromise which you speak so much about
1. Fleets atm increase at 60k and every 10k after that.
how about if they stay the same increase till 100k then they have a major increase the the current cost for fleet 100,001.
so instead of having a big jump in price at 60k it would be a huge jump at 100k. so in effect it would be easier to get your up increased as a pose to the cost the big people endured.
Same progression like till 60k till 75k .... 3x from 75k to 90k ..... 7x from 90k to 100k. I'm still at 60k but if the cost would be dropped that much it would be too easy.
2. leave all costs for the power ups the same as what they currently are bar charisma/production.
leave soft caps at 500/700.
make the cost for levels 0-250 in charisma 0-350 in production half price. Then over levels 250-500 charisma 350-700 for production bridge the gap in price created to the current ones so at 500 you are paying what the current prices are for charisma and 700 for production. effectively making the first half of the cap easier to get to then it is moderately easier until it becomes the same.
This boosts growth for the small then levels out the field to the big guys.
Not 100% sure on the percentages they were just a rough estimate.
If you lower the price for levels from 0 to X all the layers who are around X will not be happy as they've spent more then the others to get there. Much higher lf generation I think would solve that.
3. small guys want raid to stay some big people want initiate revolution to stay. perhaps set a cap at 5mil planets where under 5 you can raid but not initiate revolution and over 5mil its the other way around.
also make it more costly to do initiate revolution.
big guys couldn't initiate revolution to guys under 5mil and little guys cant raid those over 5mil.
I like it ... but the raiding/revolution limit should be dynamic .... once rank is based on no of planets let's say the limit should be 60% of the average of the first 100 players.
4. Vacation.
with the updates and ideas floating about with ppt on ascension make vacation lose all bonuses on main and no blessing as if you're active up there you should hit vacation to stop being descended or raided anymore and there are idea in place for small trips so i think this idea would be good. encourage those that don't play to play.
Blessing has to go if you're on vacation ... bonuses maybe 25% insted of 50. Maybe have a "soft PPT" if you are constantly away on weekends for exemple .. you are on PPT but only at 66-75% income and CER.
Timmy
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:21 am
by TheRook
Nostradamus wrote:Timmy wrote:guys want raid to stay some big people want initiate revolution to stay. perhaps set a cap at 5mil planets where under 5 you can raid but not initiate revolution and over 5mil its the other way around.
also make it more costly to do initiate revolution.
big guys couldn't initiate revolution to guys under 5mil and little guys cant raid those over 5mil.
I like it ... but the raiding/revolution limit should be dynamic .... once rank is based on no of planets let's say the limit should be 60% of the average of the first 100 players.
4. Vacation.
with the updates and ideas floating about with ppt on ascension make vacation lose all bonuses on main and no blessing as if you're active up there you should hit vacation to stop being descended or raided anymore and there are idea in place for small trips so i think this idea would be good. encourage those that don't play to play.
Blessing has to go if you're on vacation ... bonuses maybe 25% insted of 50. Maybe have a "soft PPT" if you are constantly away on weekends for exemple .. you are on PPT but only at 66-75% income and CER.
Timmy
4 I'm all for getting rid of AB on vac mode and lowering the % below that of being descended... so less people will hide on PPT as they will get more from being descended
3. if the top 100 players you mean rank1-100 then thats a problem as if they have 20mill armysize (minimum) at about rank 100
If im getting what your saying
then the average of the top 100 would be incredibly high... even the size of the person at rank 100 would be 60% of 20mill 12mill armysize or lower can be stripped!
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:22 am
by Raven
we are looking for Caps for the bigger but the last pages are full of caps where they already passed by long time ago.....
People are far over 1bill mark and far over those 200-350 lvls named.....
Maybe we need a hard cap to bring people back first like was done in main.....
Revolution just needs to go....
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:26 am
by Timmy
Raven wrote:we are looking for Caps for the bigger but the last pages are full of caps where they already passed by long time ago.....
People are far over 1bill mark and far over those 200-350 lvls named.....
Maybe we need a hard cap to bring people back first like was done in main.....
Revolution just needs to go....
its the levels 500/700 named idk if they're over that.
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:34 am
by Nostradamus
They weren't 1 week ago ...... I'm not sure about now, but if the updates are coming next weekend I think there's a high chance some will be over 500/700.
Raven wrote:Revolution just needs to go....
I disagree .... if it couldn't be used to destroy an account it would be very fun to play with ..... what you have against the idea that if you are revolutioned you can't be raided by anyone for 24h ?
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:01 am
by Nox
revolution doesnt need to go, it just needs to be tied up with a raiding cap, better yet a soft cap, dont make a cap like main, that when u reach 75mill no more raiding
do something like, u can only raid and revolution someone close to ur army size, like if someone has 100mill planets he can only raid ppl from 90mill to 110mill planets or something like that:
to make it dynamic but still getting harder when u get bigger, and since the ranks in ascension are based in influence (that includes total army size right? ) so u can use the same modifier then in main raid, ur rank tenfold, meaning the nr 1 player can only raid to rank 10, and rank 10 can raid from 1 to 20, that would mean the lower sized players like a rank 400, can raid till 4k and everyone above
and this would be good for main too, after 75mill,, just leave out the tenfold bit and just leave the plus 10
so rank 3000 could only raid 2990-3010, that would not just be fun, but include a whole different strategy
soft caps need to be inserted into ascension in this update, its the most urgent update to make right now, to make the server more active
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:45 am
by TheRook
no... with the rank modifiers being removed (or that was mentioned at one point)
what is to stop a big player who can raid me destroy my account so someone can then strip my income planets...
No Revolution must go... there are more reasons for it to go than for it to stay!
it is a blight on the smaller accounts of the ascended server... something MUST be safe so people can rebuild and people wont think that ascension is impossible to grow in if you dont know the right and powerful people....
Raiding itself is fine... but revolution just cant stay otherwise people wont play as even with higher levels and better growth can still be stripped down to practically nothing...
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:51 am
by TheRook
possible solution (Initiate Revolution)
how about you make a networked income planet then?
takes 5 normal income planets to make networked ones (just like defence) they dont bring in the same income (instead of the equivilant of 5 planets its the equivilant of 4 planets) & they are more expensive than training 5 normal ones
So it costs more and your basically losing 1 of the 5 planets... the upside?
they are untouchable... you cant Initiate revolution on the Networked income planets but you can on normal income planets...
so you get less income 4/5ths the number of planets spent and it costs more to get the protection OR you take the risk and earn more and training them costs less
A balance to both sides of the argument(discussion)
People get protected planets at a slight loss
People still get Initiate Revolution
then people get the choice of having safe planets or making more DMU...
I personally will take the safe planet option... but some people will go for more DMU
what do you all think?
TheRook
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:58 am
by Nostradamus
Assuming no revolution what could you do to stop a higher ranked player to assassinate everything you have except guided ?
The sabb your weapons ..... you will be then farmed by smaller accounts so there isn't any big difference.
There are means to prevent revolution to be used to completly wipe out an account ..... I think it's better to find them and if they wont work only then remove it .... it adds complexity to the game and that's a good thing.
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:04 am
by Nostradamus
TheRook wrote:possible solution (Initiate Revolution)
how about you make a networked income planet then?
takes 5 normal income planets to make networked ones (just like defence) they dont bring in the same income (instead of the equivilant of 5 planets its the equivilant of 4 planets) & they are more expensive than training 5 normal ones
So it costs more and your basically losing 1 of the 5 planets... the upside?
they are untouchable... you cant Initiate revolution on the Networked income planets but you can on normal income planets...
so you get less income 4/5ths the number of planets spent and it costs more to get the protection OR you take the risk and earn more and training them costs less
A balance to both sides of the argument(discussion)
People get protected planets at a slight loss
People still get Initiate Revolution
then people get the choice of having safe planets or making more DMU...
I personally will take the safe planet option... but some people will go for more DMU
what do you all think?
TheRook
The super income planets should also be untrainable ..... this way if someone assassinate you to hell it would be better to have a decent CER or else ........
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:11 am
by TheRook
Nostradamus wrote:TheRook wrote:possible solution (Initiate Revolution)
how about you make a networked income planet then?
takes 5 normal income planets to make networked ones (just like defence) they dont bring in the same income (instead of the equivilant of 5 planets its the equivilant of 4 planets) & they are more expensive than training 5 normal ones
So it costs more and your basically losing 1 of the 5 planets... the upside?
they are untouchable... you cant Initiate revolution on the Networked income planets but you can on normal income planets...
so you get less income 4/5ths the number of planets spent and it costs more to get the protection OR you take the risk and earn more and training them costs less
A balance to both sides of the argument(discussion)
People get protected planets at a slight loss
People still get Initiate Revolution
then people get the choice of having safe planets or making more DMU...
I personally will take the safe planet option... but some people will go for more DMU
what do you all think?
TheRook
The super income planets should also be untrainable ..... this way if someone assassinate you to hell it would be better to have a decent CER or else ........
then whats the point of the suggestion? you just lose the income planets either way?
so nobody would use the super income planets... the point is to give people a way of having protected planets IF they want to take the extra cost of training them and the slightly lower production and leave Initiate Revolution for those who want to be able to do it...
You just seem to want a way of stripping everyones ascended account down to nothing... being able to do that will keep the ascended server like a ghost town! people need a reason to put the effort in... and being able to keep growing is the only way to do this... by allowing there resource planets to be stripped as well as everything else destroyed will not make someone think hey I'll play the ascended server only to find that in the first war someone bigger comes along and destroys EVERYTHING and a smaller person in the same alliance comes and raids your revolutioned planets
TheRook
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:27 am
by Nostradamus
Lol .... the people will do the smartest thing and keep like 80% in super income planets and 20% as normal income planets ..... it's quite a resonable compromise.
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:33 am
by Corsair
Ok slight radical approach with an old twist. Instigate some thing like lifers in main but where Initiate revolution untrains a percentage of those lifer planets but leaves normal income planets alone.
Re: changes to ascension
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:47 am
by TheRook
Nostradamus wrote:Lol .... the people will do the smartest thing and keep like 80% in super income planets and 20% as normal income planets ..... it's quite a resonable compromise.
thats fine... or they could do 100% as supers or 100% as normal income planets
but if people can grow bigger without being destroyed you will get bigger accounts and people being more confident in defending it at that 20% normal might increase to 50% and at 40mill income planets (for both) thats 20mill that you can initiate revolution...
as corsair said you could make a lifer system... which I'd be all for I'd just have em all as lifers MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
TheRook
/runs off giggling