The polls already been done Frank - not a huge turn out of voters - not sure how many people log into here - but overwhelmingly they wanted a change - you can find the poll on this forum.

From my experience, a relatively large thermonuclear device is needed to get some attenion on this ..

I know this post was directed at SO server, but SO wars mission grinding is insane.  It just takes up so much time - I avoid Black Holes - and still - its the sheer mind numbing repetitive nature of it - that can go endlessly for hours because its 1 turn per mission.  Or it would - if I could stand it for more than 30 minutes at a stretch.

Please - increase turns and segs for missions on SO wars - and help these people with the time factor on SO server as well. 

Its a great game in almost all respects - but the time requirement to play competitively is too much - Im sure Derflinger and Broken are going to die at their keyboards - Im sure of it - help them!

PLEASE EMI >> HEEEEELLLP >>

No warps on counters hmm - I dont think you mean that.  Having someone warp on you is a pain in the ass, having someone annihilate your entire fleet because maybe you killed their lead - thats not a fair return.

Its hard to land an attack, you can usually only get the top ship or two - warps are common - giving someone a counter is pretty dangerous (though Ive been handing them out today - 6 I think).

Im happy with them - need some incentive for us warmongers to attack people - no warp would be too nasty.

Suggested format, tie the sliding scale to the level of the missions.  So if you want you can chose to do the lower missions for more segs.

Scale suggested

1 to 250      - 5 turns, 250 segs
250 to 500  - 10 turns, 400 segs
500 plus - 20 turns, 750 segs

Emi please - for the love of SANITY - can you have a look at this idea?  Theres some guys who are grinding endlessly, then getting smashed for lots of segs PvP, we dont want any TEARS!  Also - Im a mission hater - please - I think most people really want this!

No-one else had the heart to respond I think FTP rofl

Sorry Silence - but one spy and all the fun of "sharing where I am" is well and truly over.

Not sure which religious commune your from, but in the real world - people dont always play nice.

haha - no, actually I did the same thing for you, and also .. hmm someone else .. forget who right now - so guess we are even on that score - however there is still the matter of you hammering me because I was logged off for more than 24 hrs .. hmm - Im going to want my 70k segs back - and even though im very polite - youll have to understand if I dont say please

I also noticed 6 people have voted for "Sliding scale"  Might need to work up a decent model if that turns out to be the popular idea.

I originally thought you should use encrypt level - but Ive since changed my mind on that.  Encypt level is not tied into your current amount of segs - its simply a measure of how much work youve done on missions.

Some players might get hammered badly in PvP - to penalise them because they have a higher encrypt would be a further deterrent for them to try and make a come back into the game - so id suggest that the sliding scale be tied into the players current number of segments.

That way if you took a beating - you might drop down into a region of faster growth - making a comeback more viable.

A couple ideas for SO WARS to improve the competitive nature of the server.

- Eliminate or reduce the turns needed for movement.  Mainly this will allow players with time to invest the opportunity to find more encounters and also enemy players - not good for me personally - but I know some players spend a lot of time on the game, but may move around very little - just sitting and grinding missions.  This will open the playing field more and allow players to do more exploring rather than sitting in their own corner of the galaxy.  This should make it a more active game - with more PvP combat - and players not having to budget turns of movement so much against turns they could spend in other ways - the more free players are to explore the greater the opportunities for interaction.

- Scanning tech, allow a 2% or so chance to find an enemy player by scanning for them.  Set this to one attempt per player per 24 hours (for example).  As the game progresses mining facilities are less and less useful - due to declining resources and also increases in other sources of income.  Scanning tech is a big investment - this will ensure it is useful throughout the life of the game - also increases PvP opportunities.

- Warp evasion, reduce the percentage chance of warp evasion.  I think this really needs to be considered - an increase to the percentages granted by Warp Disruptor tech is a nice clean way to install this mechanic, say increase to 5% per level.  Otherwise a flat out reduction of warp evasion chances - its more than annoying warping halfway across the galaxy, spending 300 billion credits prepping an attack and reserving fleets etc - then your opponent warps.

So far 86% of 14 responses are in favour of an increase. 

If like me you really like this idea - please ask your alliance members to place a vote.

Im opposed to the idea of no warp percent on counter attack for SOWARS. 

I believe this will be extremely bad for  the game.  Personally - I am in a position to gain from this idea - however I think it will be very bad long term.

My main reason is that it will discourage players from attacking.

Counter attacks will become much more effective than regular attacks - regular attacks can be very difficult to land at the moment, and are usually quite risky and costly - defenders have a "home base" advantage and also their regular chance to warp.

Also it is difficult to annihilate a defender with a regular attack, because they can warp away - so you need to adjust fleet power to inflict damage, but manage it to reduce warp percentage.  This means the attacker needs to do a lot of hard work and possibly spend a lot of credits to make to make an effective attack - the defender would then get the opportunity to leisurely annihilate the guy who put in all the hard work.

This would certainly discourage me from making attacks - better to wander around with a stack of credits in my bank hoping some fool will attack me.  It will also cause a lot of other issues which I wont discuss in the forums in case this actually goes ahead.

I think this idea had some strong support, so Id like to poll it to maybe raise the profile again - I know I would love for an increase in turns and segs from missions, anything that cut down the time commitment to such a repetitive activity has got to improve the fun of the game.

Note - this change doesnt effect play balance if its a flat increase - it just effects how much time players have to spend mindlessly grinding - of course there are those who like mindless things ... 

I think its fairly hard to get enough PvP anyhow - more nebs and hiding spots would tend to kill the PvP - so, no to this from me.

Not sure I understand mate?  How do higher encrypt players get a bigger advantage out of this than anyone else? 

From my first suggestion - its a flat increase to segs and turns for all missions - that will effect everyone the same.

The second proposal of a sliding scale actually costs the higher end players more turns to gain segs - so the incentive to PvP for segs is higher. 

So niether of my suggestions helps people with high encrypts.

If you were referring to Basils suggestion - then I agree with you - there is absolutely no justification for increasing the gains at the high end, they should be slowed down to close the gaps between players imo - players are already widely spread out - that would just add to it - and you can just about forget any PvP - youd have like 2 valid targets - the person above and below you, and youd probably never find them.

Yeah - I was thinking about this overnight and Silence' suggestion on the sliding scale - though i think maybe my sliding scale is the reverse of his suggestion - I didnt quite get what he meant.

Anyhow, here's the idea.

Players can only see missions between their encryption level, and 50 levels below it.  For example, if your encryption is 200, you can see missions from 150 to 200 - this is an example, you could make it 100 levels below etc.

A sliding scale for turns cost is introduced to missions, segment rewards is the same regardless of the mission level.

Example;

Missions 1 to 100      - turns cost = 5, Segs reward = 500
Missions 101 to 200   - turns cost =10, Segs reward = 500
Missions 201+           - turns cost = 25, Segs reward = 500

 - again this is an example, you could space it out more if desired

This means starting players can actually earn more segs, but they have to do more work grinding to get them.  Higher end players have less grinding to do.  The starting players move up more quickly in segs - and the top end players who are probably getting bored of grinding, now have the grinding cut back.

This will tend to make the game more competitive, less repetitive and I for one would say that I would welcome the increase in turns at higher levels, I know its a slow down - but it would feel like a reward - means less grinding.

It is also intuitive - higher missions take longer to complete.

This would effect each player differently depending on their current situation - so there would sure to be a fair amount of communication and feedback required to put a change like this through on the live server - however, I think it could be done.

Maybe some top end players might see it as a threat or a loss of their work - but they should consider that if they have already ground up the segs - then they will have an ongoing edge, as others will be restricted in making the gains they have - newer players should welcome the change as it gives them a better chance to catch up - mid range players are largely un-effected (except for the reduction in grinding required - which has to be considered a plus).

Yeah the neb one is prob not really a good idea - I was just trying to think laterally and come up with new types of rewards that werent turns, cash, CP or XP.