Nice way to add some more turns to the game.  Problem is once one alliance member finds it, the entire alliance gets 500 turns and free nebs.

Spayed, I can't believe you didn't hate that part!

You already had me whining -- I just took too long to quit (or at least go on sabatacle).

That's a pretty broad generalization.  Sure some probably were whiners.  Others just decided to not invest the time if the deck seemed that stacked.

Anyway, don't you want more whiners?  Once they get up to your level it can be that much sweeter to take them out

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

you're right, Spayed, but so are you ninja.  IMHO it still boils down to how many people never stuck with the game because the frustration with the learning curve was too high.  Of course, we'll never know.

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.

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.

That's actually the whole point--allow players who are roughly at each others level to go at it while protecting the less experienced from getting frustrated and leaving because they are treated like missions.  A LOT of players leave because their ships keep getting wiped out and after weeks of trying to scrape together the resources, someone far stronger comes along and wipes out their planets (and stations) just in case there might be something good or just because they can.

Reason:  Current planetary attack rules have done little to make it harder for higher players to wipe out planets of lower players while making it virtually impossible to have meaningful PvP among more closely matched players.  This is driving away players who might otherwise hang around to become worthy opponents.

Proposal: 
1.  Reset turn per attack costs to 10/20/40 for planetary combat.
2.  Define a power measure that better ranks players' combat potential (CP) or total value.
3.  When attacking, multiply the base turn cost (BTC) by .2 * Attacker Potential (ACP) / Defender Potential (DCP), with 10/20/40 being the minimum cost regardless of the outcome.  Giving:  Turns to Attack = BTC * MAX( 1, .2 * ACP/DCP).

The .2 coefficient keeps the cost from rising too quickly and keeps an attack at base cost so long as the defender is at least 1/5th attacker's power.

Example A.  Player X has a Combat Potential of 12,000,000, Player Y has a combat potential of 2,000,000.  Cost to player X to raid the planet resources would be 24 turns = 20 * .2 * 12,000,000 / 2,000,000 = 20 *.2 * 6 = 20 * 1.2.
Example B.  Player X has a Combat Potential of 200,000,000, Player Y has a Combat Potential of 4,000,000.  Cost to conquer the planet would be 400 turns = 40 * (.2 * 200,000,000 / 4,000,000) = 40 * (.2 * 50) = 40 * 10

Notes:
I suggest that the "Combat Potential" be based on something like credits and include all available sources at the time measured.  This would include not only reserve but credits on planets and secret base plus the purchase value of active AND reserved fleets.  This will reduce some of the power games that can be played to make someone who is vastly more powerful drop in rankings just to obliterate the planet of someone who is otherwise insignificant to them at a lower cost.

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.

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!   

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.   

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).