Emi -

I have a suggestion here.

There are many many inactive accounts with very low power.  THis is increasing all the time - this tends to bias the encounters to the low end of the game, where most of those accounts arent even played.

Is it possible to delete all the very low accounts that have been inactive for a long period of time?

Its also annoying to see all those low accounts cluttering up the game when you know they are not active.

Tz - my calcs return the same values as yours from Emi's stats - good luck, so long and thanks for all the fish.

Bump -

Emi - could you have a look at increasing rewards for successful attacks.

Presently the less you attack, the better off you are - some players havent attacked in months.

Testing seems very limited.  I know it was around a little while - but I only tried it out the other day, Ive done basically nothing in the test area.

Only Nightguard from my alliance looks like he even had a good look at it, and that was still superficial.

The rate of mining seems ridiculously low - diverting to mining seems a waste of time when bases are so much more efficient.

Credit production seems to be not too bad - the segs costs might flatten this thing out, but I think they will top out quite high (it will take a while) - they will definitely be high income streams using the current process.

As far as combat is concerned - I dont really know - never had a chance to try it out. 

From what I saw though, defensive strats are going to be extremely one dimensional.  I wont post what I think, but Im sure 99% of players will only use one defensive method - similar to cloaking on bases - and every other type of defense is just a waste of time.

The money?

Gah its irrelevent except at the lowest levels of play.

The INTEL is so central to SOWARS - its the best way to find a target, but players can just buy them and delete them.

This IS a joke right?

ANyhow - just in case your actually out of your mind, as you seem to be often these days Ill set the record straight for you.

As I repeatedly said in the forums (and I might go and look for my posts actually) I have been leaving the middle order guys alone - because I wanted players to exceed 10 mil segs and get into the top game.

This changed recently when guys like Jessie and Black started flaming me - so I just said - screw it, Im going to hammer everyone. 

I had high level disruptors while I was in AI - because we had high fleetpower, so I needed them them to PvP at all - Ive since added more levels.

Just because I wasnt hitting you, doesnt mean to say I couldnt - but now, frankly you asked for it.

This was suggested ages ago - by myself I think, maybe TZ.

Also - Id add one more thing - if someone buys an INTEL and the INTEL contract isnt exectuted - ie the subject player is not attacked, then the INTEL is reposted again.  Allow a player say 2 hrs to try to fulfil the INTEL before reposting.

Failed attacks are ok - its just the buy up of INTELS inside alliances, its a good tactic - but really kills the PvP opportunities.

Emi -

Ah true, that looks good then - its just the turns that would have created a headache.

When you say segments cost, where do the segments go?  Off into oblivion, or are they in the pvp arena like biofarms are - so can a direct attack harm a planets capacity?  That might be a dumb question because I havent tried the test server yet - I have to use an internet cafe for a week or so, and the speed always sucks - so I am not that inspired to try anything that requires a lot of clicking.

I will go on the test server - but for me, its like that foul tasting medicine you were forced to take as a child - you know its probably neccessary, but you just dont want to take it.

To equalise the costs of warp tech how about just dropping stabilizers to 1%, disruptors are double the cost - so that makes them equal - it also makes it harder to achieve high levels of evade.  Thats a fair change, and its basically what I proposed initally anyhow.

Of course Blackmoron will somehow twist it so that Im getting some unfathomable personal benefit for losing half my warp evade.

Personally, I would also increase disruptor tech from 2% to 3% - WARS is about attacks, but no-one has attacked me in - god knows - about 5 months.

If I was attacked, then in one counter attack I could convince them they wanted a counter attack system change too - Im sure I could make a counter attack an extremely convincing argument.

The rankings on SOWARS are out of whack.  Fleetpower is not really a good measure of players performance or standing, economy is the main thing that separates players into bands of power - and that is governed by segments - segemnts control worker populations, and now stash limits.

It would be nice if the SOWARS boards could either be changed to rank in order of segments, or simply allow it to be sorted by segments as well.

I do think segments ranking is a much better way to determine the top 10 - everyone knows fleetpower is not a good indicator.

This is another one of the items on the INTERFACE upgrade list thats been completed., and its a big improvement.

Thanks Emi - I will go through that list in a few days and update it showing whats been completed so far.

Ok cool - so the intention for them to produce useful income is still there - thats the main question I had.

Correctly balancing the turns is close to impossible because every players turns have a different credit value, and every players turns/credit value changes as the game economy changes.  Its an impossible balancing act that will either be consistently wrong for most players most of the time, or will require complicated tweaks all the time to try and balance it.

This is a similar issue to bases not having enough attack power and hit points etc - bases are built using tech, but ships are built using economies - its trying to equate apples and oranges.

If you remove the turns cost, then players will be constrained by their economies - economies are created by effective use of turns, so players who efficiently build income can benefit from doing that.  The rate a player can expand a planets capacity is already constrained by their income - if you set the return on assets at a low value, then it will take a long time to grow them to full capacity (which hasnt been set yet?)

Having mentioned the capacity limit - can I raise that one again please - how will these be capped to ensure we dont get a problem like the stash issue again?

Well, from what Ive seen so far these will not be income sources - they just cant be grown to anywhere near the values they would need to be to be considered useful income streams. 

300 years worth of turns to get to 150 trillion workers, or 2 years per 1 trillion workers - thats solely investing all your turns in them to expand their size.  Not viable obviously.

If they produce reasonable mineral supplies then they will be useful - but the stated idea that they would in someway contribute to players incomes is obviously not going to work with those turn costs.

I guess players will buy a certain amount of workers also - so that adds to the capital cost, but they wont buy them for long - just at the start.  After that they can just increase the capacity and worker growth will exceed the rate they can build.