Posts by spidey_nonsense

  • Research Items In The Shop (Not For Lifeforms)

    Quote from threeflipskat3r

    No


    we dont need more P2W we need less

    This was meant to give an advantage to those who can't afford or don't want to pay for the game like the whales do so they can invest a little early on to get an advantage in the later game if they're patient, an advantage that is otherwise only available to richer players. If anything it would add a small level of balance to the P2W system but I guess anti-P2W, despite the game already being that, wins out.

  • Noob Protection Rework

    Want to clarify the conditions that cause a person to lose their protection status, based on the 10% suggestion:


    - If you are less than 10% the size of another player and you attack that larger player OR you harvest resources from over their planet (such as helping a bigger player harvest after a fleetcrash) then you lose your protected status for one week (meaning anyone can attack you). It also means no fleetsaving over their planet which will get people in the habit of not doing harvest fleetsaves.

    - Anyone can probe anyone, bigger players can find a smaller player's fleet and pass that information on, smaller players can find a bigger player's fleet and pass that information on without any issues.

    - If you are the smaller player and you are consistently attacking larger players, you may end up being given a full month where you no longer have protection (after two weeks you can ask for this to be lifted if you eventually find the game to be too challenging under these conditions).

    - If a player does not wish to have the protection status, there should be an option where that protection can be turned off.
    - Maybe the protection should only be lifted for a certain size range. For example, if you attack someone more than ten times your size then the protection is only lifted for accounts up to 20 times your size, anyone large than 20 times your size still can't attack you. If you attack someone over 20 times your size then accounts up to 30 times your size can attack you, or something like that.
    - A caveat is that a larger player can only protect you when you're being attacked if a player of the same size is free to attack you, so there may be times where it makes sense strategically to remove your own protection status so a larger ally can defend against an incoming attack, sacrificing a long term potential of getting attacked by larger players for the momentary protection. If you manually turn off the protection status, there is a one week cooldown before you can turn it back on.

  • U1 Settings Change (Once again)

    Old mining account vs. old fleeting account, not going to change the outcome much, unless there really are brand new accounts being created to influence the vote but, even in that situation, whose to say those new accounts aren't there to vote the way whoever is complaining wants the outcome to go? Not to burst the bubble of trying to find a better solution, but this is politics and without an organized effort to get the needed numbers (and convincing GF to put the important info in the actual poll message itself instead of relying on players to click a link they likely aren't going to pay any attention to) then it's not going to change in a "majority rules" system.

  • Research Items In The Shop (Not For Lifeforms)

    Straightforward and inspired by the Astrophysics+ reward item. Add purchasable research items for every type of research with a purchase price based on the current resource cost of the research you are purchasing the item for. You can only hold one of each type of item at a time, so if you bought one for each type of research you'd be holding 16 different items (based on the current number of possible researches). There could be a minimum cost, such as the equivalent of $5 of Dark Matter, but this goes up once the resource cost crosses a certain threshold. Because the cost scales with the current cost of the research, and you can only purchase one at a time, there is no way to manipulate the system without eventually having to pay a huge amount of money. That said, if you buy a research item at a low cost and hold onto it until later, you could end up with a really good deal where you bought low but ended up getting a significantly more expensive research for free. This can only happen once per research level until you have to pay the higher cost, but it would also mean the person would have to play actively enough for that long term investment to have the best possible payoff. People are incentivized to play more to get the maximal benefit of their purchase, players can potentially get a great deal if they are patient, and whales can spend ungodly amounts of money to instantly get a research instead of having to cash in a bunch of packs.

    This system wouldn't work for mines or anything else that is different per planet hence why it is suggested for research only.

    Bonus: if you're holding one of these items it counts as having purchased DM on your account.

  • Noob Protection Rework

    I suggested something similar (and comparatively far less extreme) a long while ago and it was very unpopular. I had suggested 10% point difference attack block that ended when the lower ranked player hit the Top 500 or Top 50% of the universe (whichever happens second). I also suggested an account more than 100x bigger than another account couldn't attack them regardless of rank but that was considered to be too limiting in targets for the top players. That said, I'll support this even though I think the suggestion I've just described is overall better and more fair to the higher ranked players. You can spend tons of money to get huge still but go too far and there is the consequence of less targets.

  • Looking for an alliance

    I would offer to have you join RoLUE even though you're so new to the universe, we'd figure out some way to deal with the burden of you more than doubling the points of the alliance, but all of this very genuine and real drama is incredibly concerning. It's like you're some sort of loose cannon that could do anything at any moment. One minute you're friendly, the next you're crashing King Rabbit's whole fleet. Then who will we hide the Trix from? This is very concerning for everyone.

  • Make the Moon destruction formula scale with economy

    Agreed with the suggestion, also wondering what people think of this. May be a little messy to describe but will do my best:


    Let's say an account starts with 10 moons, first moon is popped at a standard rate (for some thematicness let's imagine whatever is helping protect moons is doing so from a distance so when one moon gets blown up they can be diverted to other planets), this then makes the second moon slightly harder to kill, third moon even harder, fourth moon more difficult than that, and fifth moon the most difficult. When half of your moons are gone, the other half become indestructible. There would be a three day cool down (timer starts when the first moon is destroyed) before those remaining five moons could possibly be destroyed. A probe report will tell you if a moon is destructible or not and the scale of difficulty. If one moon gets rebuilt, then each moon has the potential to be destroyed again but at the level 5 difficulty rating (you still have four destroyed moons). If you replace two moons in that three day period then it goes from second most difficult rate, then most difficult rate, then indestructible again.


    Now, let's imagine the person did not get more moons after those three days so there are still five moons left, and let's be generous saying when the numbers are odd then the higher amount can be destroyed still (if you have 5 moons, 3 can be destroyed). Same methodology applies, 1st moon regular, second slightly harder, 3rd is equal to the difficulty that the 3rd moon was when they had 10 moons (so it scales in that way). Then, to be extra generous, you have to have more than two moons for this to be applicable (so attacker can always have two shots at guessing a fleet location). Also, if you delete a moon yourself then all it does is lower the total the calculation is based off of, it will not make other moons indestructible (ex. you'd go from base 10 to base 9, enemies can still destroy 5 moons but you'll be left with 4 total instead), so you can't game the system in that way. On the other hand, if you start with six moons, one gets blown up, then you build five moons in that period for whatever reason (total of ten), this would still be base 6 until the three day timer is up so all five of those moons could be blown up at base rate, then two more could potentially be blown up with the usual scale of increasing difficulty.

    You could theoretically build a bunch of moons, get half destroyed by allies, and be safe for three days, but if the RIP cost to do that is increasingly higher for each moon that needs destroying then it becomes very resource inefficient to repeatedly do. Maybe the system needs some tweaking but it would help deal with the mass moon destruction issues. I dunno, thought just popped in my head and this was the attempt at explaining the thought.

  • Allow IRN to pull resources from all connected planets

    I voted no and would like to explain why.


    What is really the difference between this and just pooling all the res to one planet? You still have to ship it around to keep it away from attackers, you still have to time the arrival to each of those planets to coincide. I see that thematically it makes more sense to have the resources spread out on the various planets doing the research, but I don't see how this practically changes the system. I get that there are people who may be shipping res around in g2, g5, and g8 for example where it may be easier to not have to spend the deut to send everything to G5, but you still have to time everything to land at the same time, and if you're saving res in the same locations all the time then even if the fleets are split up you're risking getting a moon popped and losing those resources, so chances are you're already moving your res fleets all over the place to be less predictable anyway.


    I'm not opposed to the idea in theory, I just see some logistical issues and am not sure what is actually accomplished other than potentially overcomplicating the existing system.

  • Uni 1 - Settings Change

    Here is a summary of the argument for the change, let me know if there is anything else to add:

  • New pulling rule clarification

    But is that part of the pulling rule?

  • Uni 1 - Settings Change

    Based on past merges where people who like to fleet were annoyed at having everything slowed down so much compared to what they were used to, those who have continued to play have adjusted to the more relaxed pacing of 1x and the different challenges there are than in "speed universes". I dare say some might even like it for its different challenges compared to the faster speed universes. There is no way overall ship speeds are going to change (the only conversation I've ever seen with any seriousness was the return speed of probes being increased, like they have to slowly approach the planet at the speed they already do in order to "spy" but then they "run away", but even that didn't turn out to be a popular enough idea).

    Ship speeds are unlikely to even come up for a vote, let alone pass one, so while I understand why people are worried about that, it's not going to happen. Even a lot of the biggest fleeters don't want to see that change.

    Also, preemptively, changing the deut consumption rate of ships to less than 1.0x would be an even bigger issue than adding deut to debris field. One of the biggest arguments is that miners want to have some balance to the fleeter/miner in-game relationship where fleeters have had less incentive to care about miners since merching for deut became popular. The more deut that is going around, the more likely miners are to be treated like farms instead of as legitimate partners in the overall game eco system because whether they trade deut or not doesn't matter.

  • Uni 1 - Settings Change

    Should we also be trying to push for 60% pass result instead of 70% pass result? I get that 50/50 could create a 51 want it, 49 don't situation that leaves a lot of people feeling unhappy, but 70% is excessive for a majority vote. Maybe 70% should be for changes like increasing fleet speeds, since that so dramatically changes the game, and 60% for everything else? Not intending to hijack the topic with this discussion, just that this issue is very relevant to the proposal of the topic ever getting accepted.

  • Alteration to how Proposed Changes to Universe Settings are Handled

    Appreciate the clarification from your side of things regarding the Vega situation, that it was a mistake rather than there being something systemic to it. A lot of reactions made it sound as if the second vote wasn't actually undoing the problem but perhaps that was just people arguing like they have been in Universe 1 over "fleeters wanting something miners won't give".

    Krumme I agree summaries can be difficult, and inevitably won't always be perfectly balanced, but the side asking for the change is what matters most because a lot of people will have no idea why the change is even being proposed if they see no benefit to themselves. Of course dissenting opinions should be included too, but the people asking for the change being able to explain why it is important on a universe wide level could make a big difference to some of the results that keep getting rejected over and over despite having a lot of support.

  • Uni 1 - Settings Change

    Quote from threeflipskat3r

    I may be thinking of this the wrong way but isnt adding more options just splitting the vote and its already likely any one proposed increase will fail

    That is a good point. It is a situation where the staff would need to be willing to go as far as saying "Change is happening, which change would you prefer?" for this multi-option vote to work.