Dissertation on ultimately expanding the game

[Renshaak]

Boredom and frustration are two main reasons players leave.  But lucky you, I've solved all our problems in one post (referencing others)!  Now Emi just needs time, so please donate some turn items to him...

As to boredom, some just don't get hooked, but UI changes could go a long way.  Even some pretty simple changes could take a lot of the tedium out of the game.  For suggestions, please see "some suggestions" post here:  http://forum.spaceo.net/index.php/topic,5365.0.html

As to frustration, it largely boils down to PvP driving out players.

For planets, base the # of turns to attack a planet on power difference between attacker and defender.  There may be coefficients added, etc. to tweak the ranges but something like:

   Turns = Base * MAX( Attacker Power / Defender Power, 1). 

This has no ill effects on PvP between players that are in each other's league but protects the newer / weaker players from bully attacks.  See:  http://forum.spaceo.net/index.php/topic,5386.0.html

The same principle should be applied to space stations.  What we wind up with are top players crushing stations just on the off chance there might be resources / credits or simply because they can.  While disparity protection drops the number of third-graders you get to kick, it keeps more players interested to grow into worthy adversaries.

PvP needs consequences.  There is no way for a player to definitely keep from getting wiped out.  That is part of PvP.  What's missing is any real consequences for aggressors.  A handful of players are using the rest as their personal playgrounds.  They destroy others' fleets then sell off / reserve their own before the victim logs back in or can rebuild.  This drives a lot of players out of the game.

- Make ship resells totally safe, at a lower price, through the black market or through CHOAM at normal prices.  However, CHOAM may confiscate rather than pay if the ship is identified as having attacked another player.  Research can lower the CHOAM identification risk or raise the price the Black Market will pay.

- Expand bounties

- Extend counters

- Shorten neb times the higher your bounty OR have an increasing chance of attackers being found

- Count marine losses towards total losses for nebs.


Only one of these makes PvP harder.  The rest make it RISKIER, but that's different.  In the end, few new players stay because being fodder isn't fun for long and the PvPers at the upper ranks are frustrated because every round there are about eight people total you can attack and half of them are in your alliance.

[Spayed]

protecting lower players, good idea.

extending counters maybe, counting marines do that and ill tiny board u all into extintion.

bounties need to be brought back into the game, only way you should be able to lower your bounty is by countering and only way 2 increase it is by attacking. with the numbers being greatly increased.

there should be no way to stop yourself from being completely wiped out, otherwise everyone would do it and there would be no pvp...

you say there is no real consequences in pvp'ing, how about the monetary cost, it is very expensive to be an agressive player attacking all the time, sets back your income greatly. thats why there is so little pvp, if anything there should be greater incentives for pvp, like bigger rewards. eg. cash rewards for killing ships

[Renshaak]

I knew you'd be first, Spayed ;)  You actually agreed more than I thought.

extending counters maybe, counting marines do that and ill tiny board u all into extintion.

<snip>
there should be no way to stop yourself from being completely wiped out, otherwise everyone would do it and there would be no pvp...

Exactly!  Again, not trying to find a way to disallow PvP.  As to the marines it's just a little troublesome that a players reserve creds are at the discretion of others.  Perhaps having an option to only remarine through X credits would be nice as an alternative to counting towards nebbing.

you say there is no real consequences in pvp'ing, how about the monetary cost, it is very expensive to be an agressive player attacking all the time, sets back your income greatly. thats why there is so little pvp, if anything there should be greater incentives for pvp, like bigger rewards. eg. cash rewards for killing ships

Compared to what the defender is being cost, in most cases it's very little.  If you spend 10% to power down just so you can go kick a smaller kid, that 10% is nothing compared to the 95% the defender who didn't know what to do loses and it's a choice that you got to make in the first place.

I know it gets lonely at the top, but if the whole goal is to be fighting other players all the time, perhaps realigning your goals from trying to make the top 10 or moving to the Wars server are better options.  At the lower ranks halves of entire alliances are wiped out day after day because a few people want to purely PvP and it's killing off most chances of getting more active and experienced players.  That, as much as anything, is what's making it lonely at the top.  No one sticks around to grow the potential top tenners pool beyond about 15-20 players.

[The-Joe]

I would love to see the board go both ways... meaning...if someone attacks by boarding, and fails, it's ships may get boarded by the attacked ships and captured.

I would really like to set my fleet or my planet on "capture the attackers" and come back finding 10 brand new ships in reserve . Or capture and sell the attackers, and find some extra cash there.
I would like also to be able to set up some standing fleets orders. So i would leave some instructions like, if attacker small, capture, if big RUN...
Only the attacker can choose the type of attack, but the defender has no choice...

[TNTTony]

I like those ideas Joe, especially the first one where the defender marines can capture the attacker ships if they are outnumbered

[Spayed]

ren, its a pvp server, if u dont protect your ships you lose em.. there should be great costs for not protecting them..

i like the idea of boarding going both ways.

i think that you should be able to have a maximum of 10 fleets not just 10 fleets that attack but 10 fleets in total.

and i posted this in another thread but ill add it here.

when selling ships the only thing you should get back is the marines, the rest of the ship should be scrap metal and worthless..

[Renshaak]

ren, its a pvp server, if u dont protect your ships you lose em.. there should be great costs for not protecting them..

I like the general idea, but as you pointed out with tinies and the current state of marines, you simply cannot protect your ships.  But you have a point simmers "abuse" ship resale because it's the most viable way to protect your ships.  That goes both ways as PvPers attack with impunity then sell off so they can't be hit back.  I don't know what the answer is, honestly, but the resale adds a loophole that gets taken advantage of.