Forum - Space Odyssey MMORPG - a massive free online space game

SO Main:

- Planet turns attack requirements increased: 40 turns for Raid Colonists, 80 turns Raid Resources, 160 turns Conquer.

your putting in some dumb updates with no suggestions for them... there is tons of good suggestions out there... try some of those out instead

Well here is my take on this update. This update will virtually stop anyone from conquering any "decent size and decently defended" planet. A decent planet should take more than 10 attempts. This equates to 1600 turns which is more than one days worth of turn accumulation. Raiding itself would be useless since it will also take too much turns. This means that planets are safe until the endgame when you can grind for turn items. Even then, turn items are used to search for encounters and research.

Advantages: Planets are safe. You can't have one player dominate by taking out other people's planets.

Disadvantage: Pvp is now non-existent. To me this is a major disadvantage. The main reason why I attack planets is because we have several players who constantly alt-neb or buddy neb. These players (they know who they are) hide behind neb constantly. Their ships are safe and there is no use for marines. As a pvp player and as this is a pvp game, I can not dent their economy since they are hiding behind neb. No pvp there. Atleast before the update we can TRY and dent their growth by raiding/conquering their planets.

So my solution? - If planets are virtually protected...then make neb times shorter. Make the minimum neb 3hrs and the maximum neb 16hrs. Make it so people in the same alliance can not neb each other. Make it so people with the same ip address can not neb each other.

Please do something to bring pvp back.

he wont.. he's done everything to kill pvp

I agree with what is being said about making planets safe from attacks as the cost is now to high. So one alternative is not to have planets play such a major role in ones economy. another is do away with planets , another is make the defenses of the stations play a greater role in the protection of the planet another is give the colonists a higher combat rating, another is allow the purchase of marines for the planets you can go as far as having special forces if you want but the turn cost has gotten out of hand . and pvp is now basically gone as long as you can buddy neb or alt neb so your ships are not at risk. this is just my opinion and doesn't carry any weight in the game. also you can just raise the turn items frequency or raise the size of items to compensate for the difference. :2: :12: :wounded1:

This is a suggestion from snowy the street Person who sells themself for money aka fender~bender:

The higher turn cost to planetary combat is a temporary solution.

I want to add some more things to planetary combat:

- reserve troops consisting of dedicated marines that fight along side the colonists and are more specialized counting as 1 marine = the power of 10 colonists. Marines will not produce anything but guard the place. 10 Marines will occupy 1 space from the total capacity.

- marines will also increase the chance of preventing a raid by discovering the landing party and setting up an ambush spot, thus killing a percent of the enemy marines on the fleets at a very small casualty cost to the planetary marine force.

- an option to enable the owner of a planet to authorize the use of biological and biochemical weapons in combat defending the planet with an additional bonus at a cost to the environment (planetary capacity) on each planetary combat where the weapons are used.

- special items that can be loaded on a planet:
  -> Cyborg Units, Battle Tanks, etc. Used in combat and will add a certain amount to the marine reserve units, increasing the power on the defense force. Those do not occupy capacity space, since those are mechanized units. An unlimited number can be loaded on a planet.

  -> Defense Grid MK 1,2,3,etc: The defense grid will decrease the enemy combat power by X percent, up to 50% on the max item level. Only one item of this type can be installed. It does not get used after battle and will be VERY hard to find. Gets destroyed if planet is conquered.

  -> Attack Grid MK 1,2,3,etc.: The attack grid will increase % of all planetary defense forces by % percent.  Only one item of this type can be installed. It does not get used after battle and will be VERY hard to find.  Gets destroyed if planet is conquered.

The best defense of a planet would be to shoot back. A planet should have anti ship firing capabilities. Such capabilities should be a huge investment, allowing  a planet to defend itself against attacks from orbit including scouting. This way using alts to scout a huge planet in order to obtain intel, in order to use the main account for conquering would be impossible. I would give the planet itself more firepower than a space station has, but at a higher cost. Some research used on space stations should be used both to planets  and space stations, like fighters and missiles.
So i would add to the planet some planetary cannons, fighter bay and missile bay, and use the existing military base as a marines deposit. 

completely useless update, kills planetary pvp, now the big guys cant attack the big guys, now at the start of a round you cant remove an opponets planet if you feel its nessesary now its useless for people to invest in planetary defence because who the hell is going to waste that many turns.

If you ask me replies to this don't really agree with what was said here:
http://forum.spaceo.net/index.php/topic,5329.0.html (http://forum.spaceo.net/index.php/topic,5329.0.html)

This round has proven that huge size players can hurt big players and small players alike with low costs and impunity. There is no PVP in using tiny or kammi worth 10 to 100 times the value of the attacked commander fleets in order to take him down, or spend 3 times the value of the whole assets of the attacked commander to take down his planet, when you get that much from one decent size GT, and you have commander bonuses the other has not. The real cost of the planets conquered is expressed in turns, not credits. So if a player spends 1600 turns to make a planet, a attacker should spend just as much, since credits are having different turns costs at different power levels. Wars should be expensive as wars are always expensive. I salute SirEmi's decision.

Well I personally never agreed to any changes to planet attacks.


Joe, wars in SO MAIN is always expensive and has been for a while. Its just that you don't actively participate in wars and don't understand the cost currently. This update is directly preventing ANY kind of planet attack. I know you are a pacifist in SO...but really? Seriously no planet attacks at all????

1600 turns is a low cost estimation. I've done some calculation on my planet now and it would take atleast 100K turns to conquer...and the planet only took 15% of that turn cost. Is it fair that an attacker needs 100K turns to conquer a planet that cost 15K turns???

In regards to pvp using tinies. The problem is not the ship tiny and nor is it the income from the game used to buy tinies. ITs the fact that players can power down to such a ridiculously low level and attack players using tinies much lower than them. Tinies have been used BEFORE planets were introduced. Surely you know this. It is very very expensive (and therefore impossible) to use tinies on players with similar fp to you. You should try using tinies :D

No one is arguing with you about the "one player domination" issue. Read back this thread and see for yourself. But to totally remove planet pvp is ridiculous. It seems that most people want some sort of change to the planet turns...but IMO the new turn changes is too much. Remember Joe, this will affect simmers such as yourself. If planets are impossible to take that means players like myself, fender, spayed, cammy and chicken can grow our planets really really big very early on and get a big advantage again.

I never suggested size does not matter. I always suggested that the old power difference protection was good. However that does not apply on planets. The most usefull ideea would be a size difference penalty. So smaller planets should be significantly harder to conquer than big planets. Defensive upgrades are fine, but they are available at high power where they mean little to nothing.

You never opposed it either  :P

f**k it, all this update has done is make peoples planets safe, takes the pvp out of the game totally!

its already nearly imposible to pvp because of buddy nebs and taking planets is the only way to hurt those people who buddy/alt neb. and now its just not worth it to attack...

either remove planets totally or dont restrict the attacks, go play pve if u dont wana be attacked...

everybody starts off even so they shouldnt complain if better commanders gain more power and start running the game, there is no way of cheating and bug abusers get punished, those who have more power deserve to be there and if you chose to antaganise those people you can suffer the consequinces...

and seriously why do it mid round???
when planets still mean quite alot to most people. it disadvantages those who spent 10's or thousands of turns and cp in planetary defence which is now pritty pointless because who the f**k is going to waste 3000 turns to attack a planet...

True  :P
But I didn't think emi would listen  :21:

I do agree that this should have been implemented at the start of a new round, changing the goal posts mid way through a round does cause more aggrevation. 
It's difficult for me to give an unbiased opnion about planet attacks this round as I've been prevented from building one myself as I know a certain player would have just confiscated it from me!
 I'm normally opposed to buddy nebbing , but this round has been very heavily balanced in favour of big donations, making it impossible for anyone other than friends of this person to survive. Previous rounds I've left my mains out un-nebbed for people like Cammy and Nighty to be able to attack and still managed to live and reach the top 10.
The main point in which I agree with Joe is that small players need protecting. Possibly reduce the turn cost a little to attack and raid a planet, but make planets immune from being conquered until it reaches a certain level of colonists. (this can be explaned by saying that small populations go unoticed by passing ships, therefore dont register to attack)
I also agree with Tony that big planets are now safe, which means instead of fighting amongst themselves, they will turn more towards smaller planets as they can take them in 1 attack. 
The game needs PVP even most PVE'rs must realise. Without it, peacefull players wont learn how to defend and counter, or build planetary defences.

well i'll attack ya to get mains if ya want sat?.......... emi you need to quit making main server like a pvp server... take away alt nebbing by putting restrictions on full assualt attacks... and make alliance members not able to hit each other... that means less nebs.. and less nebs means more pvp

I posted this suggestion in another thread.  It's not perfect, but it does protect the smaller players from the schoolyard bullies while not taking away the PvP from those on a more level playing field.  Base the turn cost of attacking planets on power difference (and for that matter maybe space stations, too).  A very rough example would be that attacks cost 5, 10 and 20 turns base (according to type of attack) multiplied by the attacker's power divided by the defender's power.

Cost = Base * MAX( Att Power / Def Power, 1 )

This way, players who are roughly in each other's realm aren't having to spend three days' turns for some PvP but they ARE having to spend a real cost just because they want to take their frustrations out on someone smaller. 

There are still holes like which power measure do you use and is there some "plot device" that might make it feel more like part of the game than an artificial rule (much like warping small fleets explains why a giant fleet can't just crush anyone).

Emi, you posted a lot of cool ideas, but they still have the same flaws as the uselessness of missiles on stations.  They give you more options, but in the end if someone is thousands (even millions or billions) of times more powerful than you, you simply don't have the resources to prevent them from destroying your asset at any moment at a cost that is nothing but a rounding error to them.  Following the station missiles example, even as a 15ish-ranked player, if I sunk all my future turn items researching better missiles and 1/4 of all credits earned into then buying these better missiles, "The Artist Formerly Known as Fender~Spender" could take the station out using a day's interest on his credits.

ok i agree lower peoples planets should be protected, BUT!!  increasing the amount of turns required to attack protects the people higher then you aswell, sorta ruins the point in attacking them at all

What I'm proposing prevents that, Spayed.  Or are you talking about other posts?

ren tbh i didnt even read your post because it looked like alot of hard work and i was on my lunch hour.

i dont think the amount of turns should be changes, just the smaller planets defences, or give smaller planets higher cloaking defences

I'm wondering if there was a way of attacking through a neb.... maybe similar to using pinpointer probes. A nebbed commander could be attacked through a neb if its a full assault and the attacking commander has to try and discover them 1st using probes. The probe cost will be 20 turns per attempt and the chance of discovering the nebbed player will be about 10-20% This will give a new option for pvpr's and will make the pve'rs have to be more attack ready.

nah attacking thru nebs are dumb, just remove buddy nebs, make it illegal for alliance members to attack you, and for alliance members ip adresses...

and the diminishing neb go down to 0 and with more drastic measures..

One way to stop or hinder Alliance nebbing is to automatically have all members in an alliance truced with each other. And to stop people dropping out of alliance and nebbing an alliance member, make a restriction of 24 hours before they can join an alliance after leaving one.

yea i agree with you there sat, i think its been suggested before, but its still relevant, would be a good thing to implement