Forum - Space Odyssey MMORPG - a massive free online space game
March 28, 2024, 12:35:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: New game Astro Galaxy launched by ET Virtual Worlds, http://www.astro-galaxy.com
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Planets :(  (Read 2227 times)
Liawuffeh
Private
*

Reputation: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



View Profile
« on: May 13, 2015, 02:34:45 PM »

So planets are inefficient. Like, extremely.

They do tend to pay out a bit more once you get enough workers in them, but even then, it's kinda on the extreme end of being inefficient.

Compare them to stations and it's night and day...
I mean, cost wise;

Stations;
Quote from: Borg's Guide thingy
-COST-
CP - 45
Credits - 375,000,000
carbon - 15625
stone - 16250
ice - 1875
iron - 2500
metals - 2500
gold - 315
diamond - 190
(His list doesn't add the 565 turns in, or the 440 turns and 274,965,125 credits to mine it up, but I think that's because, for the latter, it talks about donating for the resources)

Compare that to a planet;
Quote
CP - 38
Turns - 38 + 958(If mining)
Credits - 3,750,000,000 + 598,295,000(If mining)
Carbon - 62500
Stone - 53125
Ice - 625
Iron/Metals - 1565
Gold - 1250
Diamond 315

Sooo yeah. The startup costs are really high, but that's kinda expected since, from what I can tell, planets are meant to be more lategame than stations.


But that's kinda an issue.

A planet with 27 billion workers put in(As well as the segments and credits to get that much) brings in 76m an hour, or 1.82b each time you unload it.

That doesn't mean I've put in 27billion in order to get it back every 2 weeks, it means I've put in nearly 60 billion in, as well as 10-14k segments.

"Well that's not so much once you get the ball rolling"

Maybe not, but consider a mine. A single mine in a decent place, with no work put into it, will bring ~187 million an hour. Baseline. If you decide to put some work into it and micro it using replication, you can get 380 million an hour.

So using the resources to make 4-6 stations, and not doing ANYTHING ELSE, brings around 750 million an hour(if 4) or 1.1 billion an hour(If 6). Microing them bring 1.5 BILLION an hour(if 4) or 2.28 billion an hour if 6.

So a planet is not nearly worth it compared to that, due to the shear amount of segments(And thus turns) you have to dump into it.
It has the benefit of scaling(As far as I can tell) exponentially with colonists...but the scaling comes too late to matter. Even when dumping trillions into it(I had 4 quad in one a few months back, not a huge massive amount, but if it's not efficient by that point there's no use...) it takes forever to get your amount back...and by that point doing encounters will bring you far more back for less opportunity costs.(Simply credits for the ships, and turns for the encounters)

For one to be worth it, you need a lot of time. You need a lot of segments, a lot of tech, and a shitton of turns.
And rounds simply aren't long enough.


Final thoughts
Sadly, Iunno really how to fix it other than a general "Make rounds longer" or "Make them give more money back". I think though, easing up on the cost of increasing the colonist cap might help. I mean, it costs 2.25b+500segs to add 1b colonists to a planet... Maybe increase the gain with 1 expansion to 50m instead of 10m? Or even up it to 100m?




TL:DR
Planets take too long to be worth it.
Rounds are too fast for that too long to happen.
Thus Planets aren't worth it.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 06:14:01 PM by Liawuffeh » Report to moderator   Logged
monkeytm
Private
*

Reputation: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2015, 04:20:43 PM »

stations can be much overpowered. if i use winnings i can get 4 stations on the second day of the round (which can produce an average of 180m per hour per station.(4x180x24=17.280b per day) due to the fact that reavers are no hassle if you know how to deal with them (even with a 5m cost ship i can wipe out revers) and to get a planet it takes longer. and not worth making until you reach high level gaia E.g level 10. before it makes it worthwhile. but by the time your able to get it to that stage. your ether high in power wich would make it useless. or someone maxes which in turn makes it useless again. which in turn was a waste of resources cp turns & creds on research. which makes them a useless part of the game that has no real need and may as well be removed.
in my eyes there are a few options that can be done to make them a viable option again

1. increase the payout & decrease the research + resources required to build them and add more features to them.

2. make them so they are required to reach max power. + option one.

3. make a rank & reward minigame system that is based around planet building/capturing that will make it fun & exciting.

There are many other ways to make them fun and viable. these are just a few i am not putting effort into this post until i see you doing updates & fixes to the game regularly again.

otherwise just remove them from the game all together. 

Commander Monkey
Report to moderator   Logged
forumemy
Staff Sergeant
*

Reputation: +2/-29
Offline Offline

Posts: 314


I am cool. right :(


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2015, 04:00:49 PM »

Planets (even when they were useful in the game) were only used once a players got in the trills of credits to be able to upgrade the planet to gaia lvl 10 at least with some other upgrades. They were never meant for people that can only be able to put in 30 bil workers. Alot of new players have it in their mind that they need a planet as soon as possible when that is not the case. I think upgrades for planets should be MORE expensive but do more for the player to stop "tempting" players to get planets before they are ready. That is the players fault and not the game I believe

EDIT: by more expensive I mean the initial investment in a planet should be more expensive and the upgrades should be more expensive, but could possibly give the same value. Such as instead of upgrading from 1 through 5 on a gaia planet, maybe 1 to 2 will cost the same as 1 to 5 currently does and give the same benefits but all at once. If you see my other suggestion thread you will see another suggestion I make to have planets viable again without changing them that I believe is pretty good.


emy 12
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 04:26:44 PM by forumemy » Report to moderator   Logged
Liawuffeh
Private
*

Reputation: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2015, 11:20:43 AM »

My point was at no point is there a time when planets are useful. I've waited till I could dump unreasonable amounts of resources in it, and the returns never stop being lackluster.

Quote
hey were never meant for people that can only be able to put in 30 bil workers.

I purely used it as a reference point as an example of how inefficient they are. If I had screen shots from when I had 78quad I'd use that, but I don't.

Quote
I think upgrades for planets should be MORE expensive but do more for the player to stop "tempting" players to get planets before they are ready.

While the idea is sound, by the time they are 'ready' they are either already holding a massive lead and the round is almost over, or they weren't going to win anyway, it puts them more behind, and the round is almost over.

Round length and how snowbally the game is at the end keeps in a spot of "Too early" or "Too late". Again, by the time you have hundreds of trillions, or upwards to quints, GTs are far far far far far more efficient, cheaper, and reliable.

Also making upgrades more expensive would make it an even bigger noob trap, not a deterrence. It'd be better to raise the base price so people can tell from an instant "Yeah, too costly, move along."

Quote
That is the players fault and not the game I believe

Noob traps are a game design flaw, not a player flaw.

If something is horribly bad at low costs, but has a very low entry cost as well as no indication in the game that it's horrendously inefficient until the extremely late game, then it's the game's fault.

Quote
by more expensive I mean the initial investment in a planet should be more expensive and the upgrades should be more expensive, but could possibly give the same value. Such as instead of upgrading from 1 through 5 on a gaia planet, maybe 1 to 2 will cost the same as 1 to 5 currently does and give the same benefits but all at once.

I agree with that.
I would still say the initial costs and starting benefits being higher on a planet would be nice too.

Quote
If you see my other suggestion thread you will see another suggestion I make to have planets viable again without changing them that I believe is pretty good.

Your suggestion in the other thread would make planets weaker due to segment costs.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 11:32:53 AM by Liawuffeh » Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!