I think that is also a very good idea. The percentile chances of moon destruction. If it's risky then the attacker would have second thoughts. Not all players can buy rubies. To get a moon of a small diameter, after many attempts, build it up then have it destroyed, not good. That player would have more than a 50% chance of giving up and leaving the game.

evilbass wrote:New moon destroy formula
->A new formula, more riskier but with less rips involved so moon pop will not be only possible with huge amount of RIPS but also possible with few rips (still risky though). In this way, dozens of players will be able to destroy moons instead of several.

this will render some safe moons no longer safe.... ie moons over 9.9 at the moment!...
making FS even more risky

I do Agree FS would be more Risky,,,which is why i Agree with a Previous Users Comment on Phalanx Distortion Tech or something like that,To be Able to Distort an Arrival Time by even Seconds would mean the difference between getting your fleet out of there,,,or even Ambushing the Opponents fleet, thus adding a type of Deterrent, There should be a Technology and then a Building requiring said Technology. This Technology would be useful to new players who might not be so lucky to have a moon. I for one would love to be able to feel safe about FSing from Planet to planet, all i would need do is activate the Distorter, however then this raises the Question, should there be a time limit to how long it distorts, my Idea is have it Consume a Large amount of Deuterium, 50 000 per hour for example. this way you cant just use it for ever, however i think 200K per hour would Balance it enough. If All moons become "Less Safe" as you will, then we will need some form of defense to balance such a devastating event,


Also on the Page of the Graviton Missile Destroying a Level of a Mine, i Disagree with that, As much as i would love to spam these at large players to destroy their Mines, they could also be used against smaller players who say just hit 100-200K points to Impede their Progress,,,if they can't get their Mines up with out getting them knocked down, then what would the point be to playing. I do Agree with the Mass Damage part however.

Maybe instead of destroying a Level of a Mine allow them to Destroy fleets on the planets surface as well as defenses.

I think distorting a phalanx is not needed. If you have a moon, then you can't be "Flanxed".

Perhaps making a moon above a certain size "Un-poppable". That way rubies moons would be bullet proof as would some naturally occurring moons.

As long as you launch from that moon, then you will be safe.

Bringing in more safety to newbs in the form of a higher newb protection level might be the key. Perhaps even raise the 19% chance of a moon to say 50% chance of a moon being created?

19% chance, slightly less than 1:5. Although as we all know, that doesn't seem to mean a lot, lol. My record, 19 chances. I know there are others who more than put that in the shade.

i would disagree with this because of the new Moon Destruction Calculations that i beleive the Admins really want to implement, If your moons were popped 1 by 1 faster then you could get them back(Without Rubies) then you will want some type of fallback Device that can help you defend your self. still your a Senior Player Compared to me so i assume they would take your say into account more then mine. no offense if that does offend anyone(Dont know how it could if it does)

Well, All I have to say is you don't want to 'nerf' the game to the point that is not worth playing.

We do need reform and I think we are on the right track by discussing some possibilities. Maybe some will be implemented in the attempts to appease the entire player base. That is my hope.

Mine and torgards are the best ideas that will help new players we don't need new ship's or new tech which will end up helping everyone then we back to were we are now tutorial will help new players have a look at grepolis to see how it is done the more new players we get through a tutorial more will play on

So, I'm really glad to see some discussion on new ideas taking place... Thanks for asking for input Zorg.

That said, there are two separate issues here:
1) Retaining new players
2) Increasing medium to large player's ability to survive against gigantic players/player

I see discussion of both of these here... and a lot of really good suggestions that would help new player retention... but as Zorg created a separate thread addressing new player retention, I see this topic more as addressing the second point... so that's where I'll focus my energy.

Zorg wrote: I understand X-TREME is having some issues with a certain player who has grown too far. We are ready for your suggestions on tools you want to take him down.

I'm taking this as an opportunity to respond to that invitation.
My suggestion is simple: keep indestructible ruby moons, while also increasing the risk factor for popping smaller moons.

I know the "certain player who has grown too far" will not like this suggestion, and that he will argue against it... He has already expressed elsewhere that he does not agree with it. Just as your v-moding of inactives upset me and many other players, making a move in alignment with my suggestion will upset him. I hope this does not stop Zorg from taking action.

Zorg wrote:The moons have become very important in X-TREME as an indestructuble moon seems to be the only way to escape fleet crashing against much stronger enemies, correct?

Sadly, you are correct. I have observed countless other players who believed they could fleetsave safely without using indestructible moons crash. I have come to believe that once one possesses a fleet above a certain size, there is no true way to safely and affordably fs (if one is not in the same alliance as the "certain player who has grown too far") without relying on indestructible moons. Numerous players have told me that they have thought about quitting (or even have quit, in a few cases) because they have seen waves of 10k+ rips coming at them, and a sense of futility has descended upon them... They have no real recourse, but to watch their moons vanish, as no combination of players outside of the top alliance have enough lunar guardians to ninja something like that, even if it could be practically arranged...

Zorg wrote: If there were some thousands of moons at inactive players though, this problem would be inexistent as you would be covered from a moon to moon fleet save.

Sadly, I don't think this is at all true. Lots of moons on inactives would be a great thing, certainly! This would help smaller players, and make it easier for them to get started and learn fleetsave. However, if all moons suddenly became destructible, medium to large players (even the largest of which is still comparatively small) would find it impossible to fleetsave safely and affordably... A collection of players in the top allaince could collaborate to pop all of the moons of this player in a short period of time (even with MD limits, this could be arranged, if multiple players took part), and could then proceed to pop all the inactive moons in every system that player has a planet in. Even if the risk factor were increased, this still might be worth it if the fleet being hunted were large enough. Even making a lucky guess every now and then would probably turn out to be worth it in the long run for the top players. Thus, this would remain a constant worry that would disallow players with larger fleets from resting easy when they fs-ed for the night...

Also, ability of anyone to pop large moons doesn't really help in the fight against larger players or players in the top alliance... as even if you did catch a fleet from this alliance on lanx, the top player would easily be able to arrange a ninja, and if you popped a moon of a member, you would have to expect retaliatory bashing and MD's, making it completely counterproductive. Thus, lanx becomes a tool that is purely useful to the much stronger player hunting a much weaker opponent or group of opponents.

So, my suggestion is to increase the riskiness of MD missions... While maintaining indestructible ruby moons, which have become irreplaceable for players with significant fleet. I'm not going to lie, this IS selfish... I do not think I would be able to survive in this game without the use of indestructible ruby moons for fs purposes.

As I said, this suggestion has already been shot down by the top player, so we know he doesn't like it. It is up to Zorg to decide whether or not that is enough reason to ignore it. I see the top fleeters telling everyone else to adapt when things in the game are changed, while simultaneously arguing that changing the game is unfair... I feel that the v-moding of inactives was unfair, but I will adapt. If implemented, these top players will feel that this change is unfair, and will express their outrage vehemently, I have no doubt. But, they too, will adapt.

So, one more time, my suggestion: Increased risk of MD missions while maintaining indestructible ruby moons. Even just a few percentage increase for RIP backfire would do a lot to help, and make players think twice before popping moons out of spite

I think we need a server kitten. :3

Agreeing with mighty on higher noob protection. Though I'm fine with the current.

What about maybe doing something like Generals with different classes?

I also agree about MD's with Pulsar.