mightyoz wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:29 pm

For every plus there's a minus. As Ephemeral has stated, he could have had more worlds, but a lesser fleet. "Swings and Roundabouts". If OD is that good, then he shouldn't be limited to his growth. As stated, the cost of the tech would be his restriction. I am not saying this is true in your case Mana, but normally there seems to be personal interests and perhaps jealousy involved rather than seeing the bigger picture. As one of our so called "moderators" (lol!) says in reply to many suggestions for improving the game, "it affects the dynamics of the game" . Only seeing the smaller picture in her own case because it suits her. We have to look beyond this small mindedness as in her case. Thankfully, like all the other mods, she seems to have vanished now. So at least we can put forward ideas without personal restrictions being put forward.

I think the ideas put forward by Ephemeral are generally good ideas. It certainly would make the game more interesting.

Not sure who you are referring to as a moderator because I am not one to the extent of my knowledge. As for looking at it out of jealousy, I would disagree. Don't get me wrong, I am jealous of OD's Fleet and overall ranking on that server, however he is by far a much better player than I and I do not hold that against him. I am merely stating that with people of that level skill or nearabouts will quickly dominate the server and scale much further out of proportion to the average and newer players and without a cap or restriction somewhere, the server "may" (and I am only guessing as I don't know most people) run into the same issue as in the previous servers of scaring off more players than it retains.

I will admit with the high protection cap and generally fast paced stats this could counter my argument outright, however I think it does as least merit a possible concern.


I will just tack this part onto this to not spam messages in the forum:
JGSteel, I love the idea with the Solar Plants and Sats; I would only add a randomize variable to each slot so that it is possible to get a large range of temps in each slot, maybe even a range that could overlap and give a further slot a small/tiny chance to be warmer than a closer one.

DLX_Forum, I feel that doubling the cost of an ACS mission could be too harsh to newbies but the Deuterium cost part should work great as when you get into larger and larger fleets, it will become extremely important to manager your Deuterium stores so that you don't pin yourself between a rock and a ninja It will also get them to think carefully (hopefully) when they plan.

AS I said, I was not getting at you Mana, not getting at anybody in particular, the Moderator I was not going to specify the individual particularly, just saying is all.

As a whole players want change or don't want change as it is in their own personal interests the way things go, rather than for good of the game as a whole. I was just trying to point this out.

As for stronger players, jealousies aside. I probably would be considered one of the stronger players in my own server of choice. However, I would say that, as it is at this present time, the lower ranked players have never had it as easy as it is now. The protection levels, the numbers of hostile "bigger" players, it's not like it used to be. I will concede however that back then, when the game was in its infancy, a large fleet would be considered as several million points, not hundreds of millions as it is now. But, balancing that out is the fact that many players who lost fleets back then, they would simply rage quit and give up. The point being is that with a big hit, you get back up and rebuild. This is what I love about this game. That's why I play it. It seems that many new players want instant success without working for it. If they take a hit, they leave. I feel this is a reason why there is always so much interest in new servers. All small fish in a big pond, rather than having sharks around to feed off you. But give it a year or two and things will level out once more, we'll unfortunately be back to square one.

Again, not directed at you previously. Sorry if you thought it was.

No problem, I was just confused. Though I agree with you there, thanks to the newer generations things now seem to have popularity by being an "easy win, easy 'participation award', or I quit" mentality. That is the big enemy I seem to notice that programers and designers have to fight now to get and keep popularity.

Mana wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:20 am

DLX_Forum, I feel that doubling the cost of an ACS mission could be too harsh to newbies but the Deuterium cost part should work great as when you get into larger and larger fleets, it will become extremely important to manager your Deuterium stores so that you don't pin yourself between a rock and a ninja It will also get them to think carefully (hopefully) when they plan.

I'm not talking about ACS mission.
My idea is to have an additional option (like a checkbox) for ALL existing missions, that makes the recall speed 100% (only if you do choose to recall it).
This opens up an alternative way to fleet save, that is more flexible on your (real life) return time.

As I've explained, I think this is something that would help tremendously to expand and keep the playerbase. This will allow one's (real life) schedule to be more fluid and less ROCK-HARD locked by returning fleets in this game.
That's how life is, sometimes you can't give zorg 100% attention, and in very many cases other things might need your attention IRL before you can return to play.
So those are some great advantages to my idea for a fleet saving method, and I mentioned some that I think would balance it out and keep rewarding a more efficient way to FS.

Beyond that idea which aims at playerbase,
mechanically wise I pretty much agree with the rest that is said in this thread (higher score protection limit, exoplanets, speeds and etc)

Ah ok, so it would only cost the extra slot if you choice to recall it early. That seems fair with the deuterium cost.

Hello everyone,

I am glad to see a bunch of quality posts and a real discussion going on at the game boards after quite some time. Let me jump directly in what you have posted.

Regarding Solar Plants, this already happens as Solar Satellites and Deuterium Synthesizer. Specifically, the production of both is relative to the temperature of the planet. What matter is the maximum temperature that the planet can reach. Synthesizers benefit from colder temperatures while solar satellites benefit from hotter temperatures.

The planet temperature is relative to the planet location. Planets located at 1 are the hottest. The further you move away from the sun (towards slot 15), the colder. Slot 15 is the coldest. Slots also affect planet sizes. The further away from the sun, the greatest the size.

For the fleet save idea, I can tell that this is a worthwhile one. It is absolutely doable as well. The idea, as presented, has pros and cons and seems well thought. This is certainly something we can consider. I would encourage more people to post their opinion here. Remember, we need for a way to facilitate newcomers mostly but in the same time, we do not want to make battles obsolete.

In my book, I would also look for ways to encourage fleet battles between players. It is something hard to happen though with current functionality where one of the two fleets is destroyed. If we had some regenerate though, this could help. Just food for thought at this stage.

I will also agree with mightyoz and his view about instant success, which seems to be the objective for many people. I can say that this goes beyond the bounds of our community and online gaming in general. It also affects most modern societies nowadays and more specifically the younger generations. I must say however, as a personal view, that this could probably change in the future.

The instant success mentality is something we should keep in mind but not something that should dictate our development directions. After all, as developers we have proved that we are not here for instant success and more of our remaining playerbase is certainly not about it as well. So, preferably and ideally, we want to put our focus to them. We have a plan after all. We will use Jupiter to attract new people to the game. Then, once we develop a stable new playerbase there, we can then have a universe for hardcore veterans with all the goodies your heart desires.

I'm still up for discussing the idea of a new ship. I've mentioned it before in previous thread but cannot seem to locate it.
A ship that allows an individual to create their own moons. Small creation chance, not cheaply built , as well as a particular set of research levels to unlock. I imagine the research required would fit the ships description
From 5k to 7k diameter moons.
This will allow players who aren't part of an alliance or part of one that is not so helpful, to create their own.
The ships vulnerabilities need to be considered greatly as to not tip the scales in battles when ship quantities are higher.
I feel this would be a great addition for new players to feel they can succeed early on when they are on their own.
As I mentioned in the initial thread, am happy to hear pros and cons about said ship and would love to see some opinions!

I'll put it forth again;
I am for the self moonshot ship
I believe getting rid of public scoring is better for all players
There should be a defensive building that has RF against rips
Destroying moons should require way less RIPS but have a higher blowback chance. This would make it easier to defend against RIPS while also leveling the playing field of mono rip fleets.

I agree with everything discussed here except the self-moonshot ship. Set some baits or find some friends.

I agree to a degree with the moonshot ship. After all, if it worked by chance in the way debris sometimes forms a moon, then a self moonshot ship would be a good idea. A ship that you can be set to self destruct and the subsequent df has the same chance as the different numbers of different types of ships can currently make. The only difference being is that you don't have to wait to be attacked. Ideal for independent players who are not part of an alliance.

The defensive building type, disagree here. The structures that are currently available should suffice, ie. defences.

After all, we don't really want it adversely affecting "the dynamics of the game". lol.