Zorg wrote:Huge moons is not something we will change.

Do not worry about the game being inappropriate for veterans or too easy. The core of the game will not change dramatically. The gameplay will be a bit different though.

In particular, we are thinking to use some things from Generals and in particular Storage Den, Colonization Technology and Voyager ( http://www.zorgempire.net/forums/viewto ... 57&t=11201 ). All will be available to all as there are no Generals in this universe. The key difference here is storage den of course which will allow players to protect their resources against other players.

Another thing we will laid our hands on, again to aid newcomers a bit, is the fleetsave options. Using expedition as fleetsave will be viable as expeditions will be reformed and fleet destruction will no longer be possible. They will grant rubies though. Voyagers will play the key role in Expeditions.

Another thing that we are revising, is the removal of the bashing rule. Storage Den will help in keeping resources and as for defenses, we will increase standard regeneration to 90%. There will also be an extra technology to take this to 100% regeneration. This means, that a fully research technology will allow 100% regeneration of defenses so destruction of them will only be possible with missiles.

We also want to put more strategy in deuterium management. I know this is already an important part but we can improve this in the good way.

There are some more interesting ideas that I do not want to unveil yet. I will do in short time though. Till then, feel free to give us your feedback to these ideas.

Now, regarding the delay, you are 100% right. We have no excuse for the delays and we are stressed about it already. Thing is, we started to create A, we then said we will also create B and now are close to T. What I mean is that the original idea was much more simpler to what we are dealing with now.

Zorg, you say the changes will not make the game that different for veteran players, but many of these changes you outline will be problematic, at least for fleeters and players who actively engage in PvP. Increasing defense regeneration up to 100% will mean players will be able to keep vast fleets behind shells relatively safely... I could accept increasing it slightly, but 90% or above is way too high, in my opinion. IPMs are not even able to target moons currently, so someone could build a shell on a moon and no one would be able to touch it if it were big enough... (This has long been an issue... IPMs should be able to target moons, and I hope at least this is corrected in the new universe). Adding expedition to fleetsave in addition to keeping huge ruby moons will make lanxing no longer a part of gameplay at all... It is already barely a part of gameplay because of impossible to destroy moons. Similarly, intoduction of the storage den will mean large amounts of resources are relatively safe (though I could accept this change; the defense regeneration increase worries me much more). This will likewise decrease PvP. My broader point is this: All of these changes I see so far are going to decrease rather than increase competitiveness, player interaction, and PvP...

When you said ruby options would be like Generals I assumed (wrongly) that this would include moons. I still hope there will be no ruby moons available for at least the first month or so, and would prefer if it were longer. Ruby moons are by far the biggest advantage that players who pay to play have over those who don't, in many instances.

I understand you are trying to make a newcomer friendly server, but the more details that emerge, the more concerned I become that it really will be a "bunny" server with limited appeal to the most committed and skilled players. I realize everyone has different ideas and this is only my opinion; I don't mean to be antagonistic, only honest. Some of these changes and details are simply not what I was hoping for.

You are right about this moons + defense issue. Moons must not have defenses. We will issue a fix in all universes in Monday. Ofc, we will carry the fix to the new universe.

Defense should not be destroyed by fleets in the long run. Even in Generals, with 90% in Defense general and I have not spotted anyone investing in defenses. Generally, it is something that players avoid. I cannot see issues by the time you can destroy them with missiles. Perhaps, to be dead certain, we might need to revise missiles cost in the future.

The more we analyze expeditions, the more we tend to use only voyagers. Using more ship types makes it complicated for what we want to achieve. You are also right about fleet saves being removed from phalanxes. Something we also had in mind but now that you mention it, it becomes clearer.

For storage dens, you must consider newcomers and our willingness to get rid of the bashing rule. The bashing rule spoils free raiding mode; when you have to keep track whom you raided and whom you don't, its irritating. Plus, on a high traffic universe, the rule itself offers nothing for the defender in contrary to the storage den.

We have another idea which I have not revealed yet which will make the purchased rubies not a headache in the start. We will talk more again of this later when I reveal the second batch of plans.

Now, if you would like to make a list of the specific things, as sorted out that you see problematic, be my guess. I really want to stop replying in general statements as this is very counterproductive.

Your first post here, in this topic, was full of irony. You have been ignored.
Your second post here, was again, full of irony. Again, you have been ignored.
Your 3rd post was a bait question which has been responded in a good manner.
Your 4th post here, was a direct attack. Attack has been fully responded, in a fair manner.
Your 5th post here, is again a direct attack speaking of the unfair way you have been treated.

So, all in all, you ask for the right to attack freely and if anyone ever responds to you, he is unfairly treating you. Great logic!


Zorg has responded. Intransigence!

By responding in this manner, you have confirmed exactly the point I was making, ignorance.

To suggest that points are being ignored, they always have been, always will be. This is exactly correct and has always been the case. Zorg does not like what they do not want to hear, then in the space of one paragraph, confirm and stamp that ignorance by way of their own words.

Hence why there is so little activity. In the forums, and the dwindling take up/players staying in the game.

Thank you for your response and confirmation of my points raised. This in itself is unusual and I thank you for that.

Thank you also for this admission of ignorance. This is perhaps Zorg's first step on the path to redemption, although I sincerely doubt this, things will not change whilst we have the powers that be showing such intransigence!

As stated previously, good luck with this new server, you are going to need it.

Anything that falls on deaf ears is a waste of typing. Other posters here will, at some point realise this, whether this takes a long time or a little time, they will figure it out.

Goodbye Zorg. You have taken a great game, a great idea and you are wasting it, slowly killing it.


To Highlight one of my points in question. "Transfers Between Players"

Previously posted by Zorg. Topic: "Post subject: [Prioritized] Trade Balance, History, SystemPostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:39 pm"

So, now a vote on transfer between players, whereas there has been, previously a "Prioritized" post regarding pretty much the same sort of thing. This was, give it another week or two, THREE YEARS AGO!

Still awaiting this prioritized implementation. Another point made. If this HAD been implemented as it was three years ago a priority, then perhaps there would not be the need for this vote now? No doubt it will be argued that it's not the same, nothing to do with it. But again, another thing banded about the best part of three years ago has fallen silently by the wayside.

Enough said, I, as many others that I know will cease to visit the forums for any other reason than combat reports. Anything else is a waste of time, effort , space, etc etc etc. Ad infinitum!

It baffles me why you consider the posts that I ignored as points that have to be responded.

For historical truth, I hereby list them:

mightyoz wrote:

-MrSinister- wrote:Usual strategy concerning new servers in online games is to create a hype. Make everyone want to join when they launch. But it's a bit difficult to create a hype when the number of players reached is less than 25...

L O L!

mightyoz wrote:

Pulsar wrote:

Zorg wrote:I will be giving you the EXACT date with a COUNTDOWN timer in late August.

I hope the delay in announcing the launch date does not mean the opening of the new universe has been pushed farther back.

August 2027!

Now, if you do not mind, do not derail this topic further.

So far what's going to be in the new universe some is good some bad
Like speed size battle engine bashing rule gone exhibitions being worth more rubys wise,battle planets like more information sounds good,planet colonization,

Don't like
Df 30% that's just wrong,defense 90-100% at moment 70% maybe halfway zorg max at85% and what about bombers this is for defense bashing,all risk gone from exhibitions if rewards are high so should the risk maybe 10% loss 35%part loss, dens if set the generals that's ok but any higher this will be painfully wrong, resource generation x3 bit low when building speedx10 maybe x4 or x5 would be better

Zorg u said about ship speed but what about rf's so bring more use of the ships we have,at moment its anti-fleet hunting and anti-raiding

Edit 20% to 30% my mistake

mickylove wrote: Df 20% that's just wrong

Where did Zorg say DF would only be 20%? That would definitely be a huge problem as well. DF needs to be kept at minimum at the current levels, imo.

Pulsar wrote:

mickylove wrote: Df 20% that's just wrong

Where did Zorg say DF would only be 20%? That would definitely be a huge problem as well. DF needs to be kept at minimum at the current levels, imo.

My mistake 30% http://www.zorgempire.net/forums/viewto ... =7&t=12264

mickylove wrote:

Pulsar wrote:

mickylove wrote: Df 20% that's just wrong

Where did Zorg say DF would only be 20%? That would definitely be a huge problem as well. DF needs to be kept at minimum at the current levels, imo.

My mistake 30% http://www.zorgempire.net/forums/viewto ... =7&t=12264

That is from the old topic. Zorg has said nothing about DF generation when in the "Design Plan" topic for the new universe. I hope DF generation will be maintained at at least the levels it is at in the current universes now.

Both are about this new universe both are current treads pulsar

We have discussed this on that topic. DF regeneration might remain at the same levels and even boosted even further through specific technologies. It might be a source of probable milking but this is perhaps not the way to solve, by demolishing one good aspect of the game.