Alright, thought I would check in, and send off a message on this one as food for others thought. The name "massacre" is pretty epic, and props to whoever thought that one up. Unlike all the other servers (unless something has changed since May-June), I think this one would need some actual balance.

If the dev team wants Speed uni to be the fastest (otherwise it would become useless) I'd suggest going in-between Extreme and Speed in speed, maybe at 7x. That would make fast fleeting in comparison to most servers in games like this while leaving Speed as the fastest universe fleet-wise.

Mine production, HIGH mine production. Maybe 7-8-9x. High mine levels give the miners a start, and all fleeters want there to be strong miners to trade and farm. Strong miners make happy fleeters in games. Just as well, this will allow miners to really compete quickly instead of having to have played for a year.

DFs. I would suggest something that most will disagree with, however with a name of massacre, this need not be a pansy-verse. I suggest a 90% to DF rate with no deuterium being allowed into the DF. With carnage like that, fleeting would be just as high of risk, high gain as it should be. I suggest no def to DF as turtles make up a large part of the game, and allowing them to have defense hit for a profit will create a too top heavy fleeter game instead of a balanced one (point ofc being that if the turtles are kept from quitting, there are more players to buy rubies and keep that active player total up, as that is something all new players look at).

Removing the bashing rule entirely however will cripple turtles from whenever a fleeter gets ticked at them. To counter this, I'd suggest a higher defense regeneration rate. Instead of 70%, suggestion of 80%-90% in that range. RIPs to have a higher deuterium cost at launch, as their original purpose in these games was to be a moon popper and not a turtle-raper. This gives something for turtles.

As for battle engine: a completely new one. Perhaps one with the bug of regenerating shields after each round intentionally used for the raiders of the game and tweaking rf.

I would also like to bring in another idea that has been rejected before in other servers, this being anti-fleet missiles (at slower speed then IPMs). Gives the turtles something to be a d1ck to the fleeters with. This would also ensure that the top players still need to fleetsave or risk losing part of their fleet. It would make a power-check that should keep people from having too bad of fleet:mines ratios (like mine was or PK was). And in the end, everyone should HAVE to fleetsave as it is an essential purpose to the game. Boxing champs still have to be on top of their game to defend in the ring, top fleeters should still have to be on top of their game to keep their fleets.

This gives each main playstyle something new, and as a result, gets each to be more likely to at least try the game. More player-types appealed to means more players in the game, and as a result, more money for the owners. And in the end, everything comes down to money.

Fleeters get: Higher DFs, good fleet speed
Miners get: Very high mine production
Turtles get: Higher regenerating defenses, anti-fleet missiles.

Just something for people to argue about. Good luck with Massacre dev team.

[quote="IKICKAYOUWASSNOW"]
Fleeters get: Higher DFs, good fleet speed
Miners get: Very high mine production
Turtles get: Higher regenerating defenses, anti-fleet missiles.[/quote]

Nice ideas Kick.

I agree with Kick to some extent. We do need to keep it balanced with more perks though.

90% DF is way too much.

a 90% DF will soon create some MEGA players in the universe. If they win a few battles first, they will grow significantly and then they become hunters. Especially if they form an alliance together.

I personally am having a hard time finding anything I disagree with in Kick's post; it's well thought out and gives something for everyone while keeping a level playing field for all player types.

big-fat-cow wrote:90% DF is way too much.

a 90% DF will soon create some MEGA players in the universe. If they win a few battles first, they will grow significantly and then they become hunters. Especially if they form an alliance together.

It seems high, but when put together with Kick's other proposals for balance (median fleet speed, no defense or deut to DF, higher launch cost for RIPs, anti-fleet missiles) fleeting becomes riskier than it is now. While the profit to be had is greater, the increased risk of being a greater profit yourself, and the danger of being hit by missiles and losing fleet will help keep fleeters in check. Higher DFs also gives more reason to get the Elite Rec moving along

IKICKAYOUWASSNOW wrote:Mine production, HIGH mine production. Maybe 7-8-9x.

Good for everyone in my opinion. Gives all player types a strong start. I've seen concerns about this creating a "miner only" universe, but more miners makes fleeting more attractive as the potential for profit grows, and makes turtling just as lucrative to help protect those fast gains.

IKICKAYOUWASSNOW wrote:I'd suggest a higher defense regeneration rate. Instead of 70%, suggestion of 80%-90% in that range.

Great idea. Even with no bashing rule, profit is not limitless. Higher defense regen, I think at least, would help lessen attacks against large shells as more ships would be required for successive strikes than the current 70% regeneration rate, increasing the necessary deut for launch minimizing the potential for profit.

IKICKAYOUWASSNOW wrote:I would also like to bring in another idea that has been rejected before in other servers, this being anti-fleet missiles (at slower speed then IPMs).

While I was against a suggestion for anti-fleet missiles made in the Suggestions thread, I think in a brand new universe this concept would work quite well.

---

Regarding some other posts, I still strongly support a 100% resource take in attacks (using the hideout as protection of course.)

15 planets + 1 still seems really appealing. For myself, 21 planets requires a lot of time to manage and gives a feeling of the game being more as a chore and less as a means of entertainment. On the other hand, 10 (or 11) planets seems to be coming up short in terms of hunting area and helping accelerate growth.

I think a map size larger than Speed but smaller than X (maybe in the range of 425 systems / galaxy) and possibly an extra galaxy or two (maybe 10 or 12 instead of 9) would give an ample amount of options for expansion.

I dont believe this will do much. I feel you need to work on building your current foundations and then filling them up before introducing a new server

[quote="Walshy"]I dont believe this will do much. I feel you need to work on building your current foundations and then filling them up before introducing a new server[/quote]


What do you mean by Filling them up? Standard is running 180 people at any time of day and extreme is around 200 last I checked..

Compared to a year ago when Standard was at somewhere around 100 I think, that is good.

I am ignorant of Speed's activity, though. Zorg probably feels it is time to bring in another load of cash when the top 15 of the new server empty their month's paycheck on rubies.

Negotiator wrote:When the top 15 of the new server empty their month's paycheck on rubies.

This is true. A new server would generate some more money and hopefully some implementation of new ships and gadgets for the existing servers.

Some good notes I noted during the past notes, nothin much to comment though.

Regarding existing universes, they are doing fine but we are losing too many newcomers, mostly newbies that see the top as an uncatchable dream. This is why we need a new universe; to expand our playerbase.

Anyone think about making the new universe a re-setting universe, maybe every 3-6 months. Keep people interested, and then you don't have the "uncatchable dream" of the top 10.