Another go at planets :)

[AFB]

ok, first- coming to science fiction, motherships will generate 0-g field which will make them and surrounding vessels have a mass of 0 thus not being affected by gravity

Then, cloaking planets will really mess things up- it'l just mean that top alliances will all seat in, just like they do at the stations, except here they can gather forces indefinetely. Also, looking from logical way- when planetary defence will engage the enemy, he can calculate the location. While a station can be relocated to make sure that the enemy won't fire on that spot again, u can't really relocate a planet.

Yes, i agree, a planet construction must be researched, but i got the idea for resources- instead of mining them,just be able to use those already in space.But to make a planet one must also spend 3000 turns, cos its a lengthy process. And another thought-set the minimum amount of resources needed, but the more stone you use, the more HP the station will have. Like the original HP is 20trillion, for each additional 100k you will get an additional 1 trill. And iron can give defense.

Since there are few systems with that much resources available, allow people to 'dump' resources into system. This way alliance members can help out

Last thing- i think 2 planets per alliance is well enough. There should only be a handful of planets, asif there are a lot of them, 1 alliance with enough cash can just capture all or most of them, and defend them easily using net income.

[jessiedog]

your idea about the more stone the more hp, if i may say so, is ingenius. thats a great idea. more stone= more hp. more iron, metals= more defence. more diamond= more absorb. more gold= more attack. more ice=more accuracy. more carbon= more housing?

i really think that 1 planet per alliance, ive changed it from 1 per person, would be best. if it really is where all players can contribute then 1 per alliance is best. players without alliances can have 1 for themselves also, but the only person who could afford it by himself would be zelox (hes a beast).

instead of the dump, how about you have to build a station first, then at a certain amount of resources, it can build the station, maybe take like 72 hours, X cp, X turns, and X amount of resources that u must deposit into the station. if the station gets destroyed during that time, then that plainly sucks for that person.

[the broken]

again stronger people/allainces will be the best, i can make more carbon a day from 2 base than you can get from turns including voting

[jessiedog]

many people can make lots of carbon a day, but carbon isn't the only thing
ur not the only one with stations :p

[basill]

If planets come into the game I feel they should be alliance owned only and the alliance must have 3 or more commanders all members must contribute to the building of the planet by percentage of alliance power (as in commander 1 is 30% of the alliances power he must build 30% of the planet or the alliance won't get a planet) it should be set up the way science is in that you don't have to put it all in at one time, each alliance can own two planets if they want a different one they must destroy one of the ones they already own, each planet can hold 1 bonus for the entire alliance and the bonus should be no higher than 10%, the alliance leader must designate a second person to hold responsibility for the planet in addition to him/herself, this will promote a little more alliance cooperation internally and give soloist a useful reason to join an alliance (yes I know people can create 2 alts and make their own alliance ) and to build a planet after an alliance has researched it the basic planet should take 1million carbon, 900thousand stone. 800thouand ice and so on down the line till you hit diamond then the alliance can research upgrades for it, the research to build the planet and the upgrades should be paid for with minerals only also on a percentage basis but that should have a little more flexability as in commander 1 is 30% of alliance power but can donate up to 75% of the minerals for any member who is 60% or less of his power.

[AFB]

Diamond for absorb, ok . Thing is with attack and acc is that I thought the planet will receive those from the guns and scanner built on the surface. And carbon... yet to think of that.

Another thing witg bases- the top guys ie. armageddon inc and area 51 can afford the best cloaks and scanners,not to mention what happens on normal server.

[jessiedog]

well area 51 isn't much anymore
the broken left for armageddon inc...
but basill, i see what ur saying, but let everyone donate resources equally.

but i like what u said about appointing a person as like a second-in-command. but maybe instead of just one, let the alliance leader appoint as many as he wants. but still before we get into alliance mechanics, lets get the planet idea down first.

[AFB]

How about letting them donate as much as they want, but the planet owner will give out sectors of planet as a reward according to help received?

P.S. Also, I thought about this, when you research buildings for the planet, only 1 level should be available. Then you can upgrade the buildings themselves with resources to a new level. There already is too much stuff to research 

[the broken]

many people can make lots of carbon a day, but carbon isn't the only thing
ur not the only one with stations :p

what i mean is, you get a new allaince ranked around 30, those players total combined income would mean the would not be able to keep up with the tech rate of a lvl 10 allaince, they just dont make enough, im not saying im not the only person with bases, what im saying is from the tech i have researched i can make a lot more carbon than a base from an allaince ranked lvl 30, this therefore means that stronger players can again make the most of it, i could just make 2 alt and make an allaince, put everything in my self and i have my own planet, i could make 20 alts fill the allaince up and still make the planet myself.

again stronger people/allainces will be the best, i can make more carbon a day from 2 base than you can get from turns including voting

thats why i made this statement, not saying that no one else has bases, many people used bases before me but i can get tech so quickly i can out proform whole allainces, nevermind what an allaince in the top 5 could do, probable a planet a day 

[jessiedog]

lol ok
so how about use IP adresses on this one. there has to be at least 3 different IP adresses in control of a planet

[AFB]

And a death penalty for those who do not obey 

I still think that dumping resources then building is a good idea, but lets change it: when clicked on construct, a construction module will deploy in system. 3 in total will be required, so ypou need 3 people. It can't be cloaked, has same attack and HP as a station and unless it is destroyed before a certain time period runs out (say, 12 or 24 hours), a planet will be made. If 1 of them is destroyed, production will be halted. If 2 destroyed, the timer will go backwards, until hits 0, so there still would be a chance to rebuild.

[Silence444]

BAH! alright i said i didnt care but i guess i lied. with how big our motherships and asteroid bases are, i think its ridiculous that u cant just say give up 100k segs and call it a planet. look, i think that everyone should be able to have planets. seriously guys, stations are underpowered lets not make planets overly pricey. i agree that alliance and/or random other people should be able to invest and contribute to the planets obviously making them stronger/bigger but still allowing small people to have their own tinny planets (even if they are just glorified asteroids). as far as what planets can do, moons, planetary control, planetary combat etc i think its pretty hard to go wrong. seriously, i dont want 10 planets in the galaxy. i want somewhere in the hundreds

[the broken]

small people to have their own tinny planets (even if they are just glorified asteroids).

for this you can have asteroid belts, no good to big players idea for the many many smaller players, there are 6000 players on wars, say a 1000 active, 1 asteroid belt would keep them going, good idea silence444

[jessiedog]

the first idea was best
the more resources put in, the bigger/stronger the planet. maybe after it is built u can still put more into it but get like a 50% penalty for building late.
alliances should be able to have planets, but so should single players. so how about u can have other players contribute or just build it urself. as simple as that and it solves a few problems as well.

[AFB]

I suppose, yes, personal planets will be smaller, so there will be initiative to build together. Thing is, we still can't decide how to build