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

Don't make destruction the sole result of ship-to-ship combat.  In fleet combat (not when marines come into play), continue using current formula to determine victory (attack >= defense + HP x shielding).    However, if defeated, fleet is taken out of that battle and cannot be used again until repairs have been made.  Extent of damage would be a random % (up to and including destruction) with repairs being represented as a % of ship value (credits) or many other options.

your just trying to kill pvp arent ya

lol sry but i agree :D :)

Just trying to keep more sheep for you to slaughter (just now it's sometimes maim).

Really, I don't see how this does anything but help PvP.  Though I've ranted on marines in other posts, I'm not suggesting that ship boarding be eliminated.  I'm only proposing that when raw attack > defensiveness, instead of blowing up the ship (where the PvPer salvages nothing anyway) the defender doesn't lose everything.  This allows him to rebuild sooner--remaining a more viable target while also keeping him around to play.

Spayed wanna elaborate on how it kills pvp?
All it means is the defender can recover a little faster.
Means more competition and more new players sticking around.
Might even help pvp cause the defender will recover in time to hit back.

whats the point of attacking if u dont kill the ship??

Still causing damage to the player.  It's what real combat is.  You hope to, and sometimes do take out the opponent's carrier, but often you only wound it and take it out of commission for a while.

meh i would consider it a failed attack if it wasnt completely destroyed.

Well, then I alter my proposal to be exactly the same except that the battle log tells YOU that the ship was actually destroyed :19:

Okay...

The whole idea of a ship getting damaged and needing repairs is valid. This idea is present in almost all Space-sim type game. A ship gets damaged and depending on the damage needs to be repaired and is out of commission.

So if emi wants to implement this...then fine...but I ask emi to test it on the Test Server first. Emi needs to take several things into account:

1. PVP is one of the direct ways of slowing down your opponent. He needs to make sure that people can still slow down opponents sufficiently if the player decides to devote resources into pvp. Maybe add skills and special items that increase chance of total destruction of ships.

2. Make sure that at a certain point of damage, it is cheaper to completely buy a new ship than repair it.

This is one of those ideas that needs to be carefully balanced so you don't alienate pvpers and remove actual real competition in the Main Server.

Quite reasonable.  Most any rule change can have plenty of unintended side effects.

This idea COULD even help PvPers.  If a decommissioned fleet is removed from combat, but only the % cost to players is counted against nebbing, pships may not be an automatic ticket to a 24-hour free ride.

if u cant destroy the ships it would be pointless..

you see if the defender takes damage then the attacker must also take damage aswell... increasing the cost of pvp dramatically. i think its a horrible idea ren.

and could damaged ships be used for pve? if so you would get people that just dont bother defending there ships, if they cant be destroyed what would be the point if they still work for pve

Actually thats a good point spayed. The attacker ships will also gets damaged and be out of commission

and that would suck!

but if you win the battle, you've obiously taken less damage than your opponent.

But if you are fighting someone with a reasonable main (ie. similar abs, acc etc) then you both will be damaged similarly. Also, the fact that your own ships gets damage AND is out of commission, means there is no point in attacking people.

"pointless" and "horrible" - a bit of hyperbole methinks.

If you're going to attack my suggestion, attack what I suggested ;)  My suggestion is not that all damage represented by the attack value of the ships carry a cost with it (Att * Acc = cost to opponent).  My suggestion was that under the current rules that would indicate a ship was destroyed (Att * Acc > defense + HP * 1 / (1 - Shield)).  So when the current rules would indicate the ship is destroyed, it may instead be damaged and taken out of commission.  This actually helps the PvPer if he chose poorly in his attack



No.  Until the price to fix the ship was paid, the ship would not be combat-ready.

So as long as the ship is not "destroyed" (in the current system) there is no damage to the ship at all after combat?

meh, reguardless of my opinion of it... i see no reason for it to be implemented..

Correct.  I do see the more realistic point being that some damage happen during almost any combat, but from the mechanics of the game, as Spayed did point out the more realistic version could lead to too much of a detriment to PvP.

I just need to clarify--do you see no value in the game or in your personal goals for how to play?

im not sure if i understand what you mean by that ren?

That's what can happen when I post while sleepy.

I think less obliteration will keep more players interested in the game and possibly make PvP more heated by reducing the chance that your target will be knocked out of your range for the foreseeable future in one attack.

I'm trying to figure out whether you simply don't believe the above could be plausible impacts of this kidn of change or if your dislike of the proposal is more based on what you want to happen to your victims.

if they dont want 2 be obliterated then they wont come near me... and anyone that can get near my rank should be able 2 defend themselfs or they wont b there long..

well ren.. simply put i attack to damage.. to serverly hinder peoples rounds. i attack to 0 every time. if i cant destroy a ship they can just sell it... making attacking useless..

I'll be the first to admit, I was a pretty devoted, but not great player.  Beyond the hated self-nebbing, the only way I can see to defend oneself is to waste a large percentage of one's resources pshipping and/or sitting idle, followed by having to play a mass of turns all within a neb to get the most effect out my remaining resources (Joe-RO's strategy).  I'd rather make full use of my resources, knowing I could lose some than leave so much in reserve

There's every chance I will Favre it and come to you another round asking to be your grasshopper student.

In writing this post, I did realize one possible benefit to you of this proposal.  In the case of people pshipping their real ships away from harm, this could cause siotuations where those pships can be taken out of commission without causing a neb--thereby bringing the real ships into range for the follow-up attacks, which, if boarding, could allow you to capture some more valuable ships.  I know, it's not enough to sell you on it, just raising the point.


Fair enough.  This one, obviously neither of us will budge on.  You don't think there can be a matter of degree and I do.  I think it's keeping the game sparse and you don't (or at very least if you do, you're okay with it).

It all comes down to income actually. Alot people don't actually remember but I was zeroed relentlessly for several rounds. Even after I joined LOESC, I had nightshadow and other players to contend with. Then I realise income. There are so many ways to make income its not funny. As long as you don't waste your income and have some in reserve, then you will always recover from pvp. That was what lightseekeer did and he didn't rely on self-nebbing. True, that the income producing strats aren't revealed to new players though.

This round should be easier especially with the new planet update. Since planets can't be conquered, then as long as people make wise decisions in research, players should always have a good income.

Also, I agree with Spayed. Once you are in the top 20, then you should know how to defend yourself. In the top 20 you are playing with the big boys really. PLUS, once you are in the top 20 you SHOULD know how to make an income and keeping some in reserve.

But I do know where you are coming from. Your focus is on the new players. The ones who haven't played for 5 or 6 rounds. The one that can't get pass the confusing UI etc. To be completely honest, the only person who can truly help them is emi. You are not the first and won't be the last to suggest changes to pvp and UI. I'm not trying to shift blame here...but its not the pvpers fault. Emi has designed a great addictive game but he needs more staff on board to make changes and updates to the game. Telling pvpers to stop attacking people or avoid total destruction of ships is like telling a non-pvper to start attacking everyone. It won't work.

I come to the belief now that both parties (pvpers and pacifist) use the tactics they know best. They BOTH want the game to be fairer and want changes...but there is none.

Wait wait wait, back up.  Where is this update doc'd?  Or do you mean "can't practically take a planet" as in...


Please tell me I just missed the update and this wasn't the final solution to planets.

As usual, you sum things up pretty well, Tony.  I fear game growth is a catch-22.  To get the staff to make more tweaks requires more players staying, which requires more staff.  That is largely the bloodlust PVPers' fault.  I don't mean Spayed's brand of attacking actual threats.  I mean much of what Fender did earlier last round--taking out any station and planet he ran across, regardless of the owner's threat level and booting players that had a billionth his FP from incursions--and the guy bouncing through the ranks taking out virtually every member of lower alliances before they can learn.

But yes, my pacifist suggestions are aimed largely at the majority of players.

Yeah that was what I meant in regards to planet  :)
Players can stick with Ocean planet and it will waste too many turns to raid or conquer. If going for gaia, as long as the player up combat bonus. Planets can survive for much longer this round.

And yeah I agree with the whole bloodlust pvpers. Just to be fair though...fender did go on a pvp bender :) but he was also influenced by his original alliance (*cough cough* loki *cough cough*) who had several members telling him to kill the server with the exception of arch angels and loki. So that blood lust is definitely in several people  :19:

when fender was killing all the stations he was new himself, being told what to do by tim and loki... and you may not know ren, but destroying stations early on can be a very good way for making money if there owners havent emptied them

Yah, understood on Fender.  I had eventually come to that realization and that's why I did finally start mentioning what he did "earlier" last round.  But he also exposed a very major flaw.  I fear that if someone else came along doing the same thing, the new planet rules do nothing but protect the evenly matched while never letting the new get started.  It may even make the disparity worse.  If you're remotely worried about someone, say #32 in a rival alliance, you'll take the 160 turn hit while his planet is just getting its legs under it.  At that point, a half trillion planet took that guy two weeks to get to but you can blow away with the interest you made in the last day.

I know Emi mentioned that those changes were temporary while he works on more things, but the high level I saw of those changes make me I think that they will have a similar effect--requiring research and resources to protect your planet--things that new players don't have many of so their planets, just like the stations always have been, are toast at a big player's whim.

all the planets update does is protect bigger players planets.. does nothing for the smaller ones i can take in one attack..

last round i had an ocean planet that had 1500% combat.. 80% shields and 500% capacity and credits... it would take days worth of turns to take with the new update..

So while the ideas he mentioned are cool ideas, the game got the worst of both worlds--less PvP at the top and more chance of frustration and quitting at the middle and bottom.   :2:

I still say drop the turn cost then add multipliers for attacking outside of your range.  That way you and MJ can attack each other at 40 per all day but taking out that number 35 will cost 400 turns per.  Oh well.

i actually like that idea ren.. but only for planets..

if it applies to stations then how are we supposed 2 kill those annoying system fleets.

Make that an official suggestion as a poll so Emi can see what people think of it.
Apparently you got at least 3 yes votes :)

Dang, I'm wordy.  That's the fourth time I've posted that suggestion and the first time I've done so in few enough words that people read it!   :P

Hmmmmmm.  I think the principle should apply to stations, too, but you raise an EXCELLENT point.  What would you say to system fleet attacks being at the base value?  That is if  you put a fleet out, anyone can toast your station along with it for just the turns it would take to attack a fleet without a station.

if stations are effected that would mean i wouldnt b able to kill a station for my alliance mate tho..

Good! well, er, maybe.  Are you taking out stations in retribution for mates or am I missing a different motive? 

I understand the strategy of helping your mates, but letting #3 take out or severely damage #60--whatever the reason--is a big part of why there's such a lack of quality players to fight it out with in the first place.  A lot of lesser players take weeks to get the resources for a single station & mining.  Then someone comes along and wipes it out without a second thought.  That guy might rebuild or very well might just quit.

I think having this difference in power/turns for stations as ren has suggested can work. It all boils down to testing. I would be the first person to put up my hand to test it in the test server.

I still want a way to help my lower team mate though. I wouldn't mind wasting say 200 turn attacking a station if that particular player was quite aggressive towards my members. There is no point in being in an alliance if you can't help team members out. It all has to do with balance.

maybe reduced rates for a station then.

i definetly agree with the planets thing.. but it would have to take into account that somebody can sell there ships and have very little power but still have a massive planet

Absolutely on the ship sales.  In the poll I posted I was suggesting some other power ranking that is based on credits (including what you have in your base, planets and value of existing and reserve ships).  I don't know what the loopholes would be but it seemed to be more effective than FP at measuring your true power.

and in my opinion, everyone that is in loki or ever has been should be able 2 be attacked by anybody for 1 turn using any attack

I assume you mean that they GAIN 1 turn for each attack ;)

meh, i was trying to keep it fair :D