251

(12 replies, posted in Universal News)

It is SS yep.

"anything goes" usually applies to our Hardcore rounds, which this is not.  So yea, networth limits, morale considerations, op limits etc, all still exist.

I do agree with this though: 

LG wrote:

If he's better than you that means he can't attack you? I don't get it

I mean, this guy's built himself to a position where he's stronger than you.  Obviously if you come up against him, it's going to be a struggle.  Like I said earlier somewhere - everyone starts out with 1 planet and 1100 nw.  So if someone is higher than you, then yea - it 'generally' means they're doing better than you - in some aspects at least.

252

(114 replies, posted in Universal News)

Yep, which is why exactly I said the following:

Torqez wrote:

1. We want to promote attacking, yet we we need to also stop the mindless farming. We definitely don't want to make it  that top fams will farm more to stay at the top.

253

(2 replies, posted in Questions)

Yes, 75% of resources during the round and 100% refund while the galaxy is still not started.

You'll get a confirmation popup when you hit 'Cancel'.

254

(6 replies, posted in Ideas)

That could be a good idea!
Would we enforce races?  And teams would be 3? And galaxy would have to run 'instead' of Supernova?  Cos we can't really open to many galaxies at the same time - not enough players for that atm sad

Yep! I was hoping to bring this back (we had it in our original sidebar), but unsure of where to put it to make it fit in -_-

Quick View is kinda related to only the map - and would still be another click before u input the fam #.

Just gotta find out where to put it..

256

(7 replies, posted in Bugs)

He's having issues in Starburst though.

I havn't come across this problem before, and couldn't see what's wrong exactly.  Have forwarded it onto Stefan!

257

(114 replies, posted in Universal News)

I don't really like the idea of limiting OB.  I mean, what's the point?  Economy "is" still an important part of the game.  We just want less focus on it, right?  I mean otherwise, we may as well just skip explo phase, randomly allocate planets to everyone and give them prebuilt 300% plaents with infra.  That way people can get into the fighting straight away..

No, but, it "is" nice when a coordinated fam, with good strategising can gain superior advantage through Eco - it's just we need a less focus on it - not to get rid of it completely.  Also, being eco focused, is still viable part of the game (we still want bankers to compete with each other, make money, produce resources etc - not everyone likes to attack).

Like I said, I think we just need to shift the focus away from it.  Ie, make it less dependent on the success of your fam.

Perhaps increase OB% costs (e.g. reduce planet sizes by half).  That way it's going to get really expensive to OB really quickly.  Don't know, I'm sure there are other ideas!  Another one could be (don't know, just thinking out loud), that regardless of individual networths, if a small fam takes a planet off a bigger fam, they always keep the infra.  Whereas if a big fam takes off a small fam, they lose it.  This way small fams attacking bigger fams (even if they jump an attacker big to do so), will have a jump start in consolidating allt he planet gains - assuming they keep them).

Altruist, will reply to your post later.

258

(6 replies, posted in Ideas)

The whole idea was so that you don't have to depend on others.

You think this isn't good?

259

(114 replies, posted in Universal News)

Okay so we seem to be in general consensus, that perhaps there is too much focus on Econ.

So how do we bring in a shift?

One idea I had a while back, is to scale the Empire OB a bit more. Ie instead of having it linear, we could make it that the higher fams are penalised more. That way it's less economical for for them to just keep infraring.

Keep in mind 2things though:
1. We want to promote attacking, yet we we need to also stop the mindless farming. We definitely don't want to make it  that top fams will farm more to stay at the top.
2. We We don't to disadvantage top fams completely, cos if you've worked yourself to be a top fam, it's cos you've worked for it.

260

(7 replies, posted in Bugs)

Hmm, are you able to come to IRC and pm me?

Almost sounds like you're attacking someones home planet, in your family.

261

(114 replies, posted in Universal News)

MotherJedi wrote:

its just a matter of piecing together small parts from lots of ideas

Yep, and that's what I'm looking for help with.

17:00    Squirrel    session timeout should now be around 2 hours

\o/

I like this idea.  I see no need for it to be 20 mins either.  Will check with Stefan.  It "is" annoying to login each time.

E-mails and other login sites don't have it this short.  Only banks and probably online flight bookings and whatnot.  We don't need that level, imo.

The only thing is, that 'Online' Tag in Fam page, I believe only refreshes on login, so people would have to just be wary of that.  You'd have more people who are online but not shown as 'Online!'.  (Then again, supposedly that shows it for 2hrs...)

264

(1 replies, posted in Announcements)

Also:

o:)

265

(33 replies, posted in Universal News)

So is wanting to do it, before we inundate you with all the requests tongue

Mind you, you've been a mod - you know what it's like! tongue

266

(1 replies, posted in Announcements)

x(

What are your platforms? Mobile? Desktop? Browsers?  Have you tried different ones?


Also, mapgen is still out there.  The tools to create mapfiles should still exist - they're all in strat forum.  The only thing I assume that won't work with mapgen, is the opening of systems by clicking 'spacebar'.  Rest should work!

268

(1 replies, posted in Questions)

So that visually, you can see how far some systems are away - sometimes not as easy to tell without it, at least for me.

269

(33 replies, posted in Universal News)

Yep, we decided not to limit to 3-4 initially thought, and have accepted you all!

Thanks for volunteering to help out! smile

270

(9 replies, posted in Questions)

Why would I need to realise that?  I already know that.  A "boosted" custom race will always be better, because that introduces specialization.

I could put Attacking low, and Income to like 1000% and own everyone in banking.  Or I could put income low, rely purely on market and go like 1000% speed.

Why would I argue with that? lol

271

(114 replies, posted in Universal News)

Altruist wrote:

And there were and are quite many suggestions how to tackle this problem and to get IC back on track.

Can you find and/or elaborate on them?  Because, given this thread (and the "Saving an IC family" thread, I think it's fair to say that most of us know the problems well.  However, I have yet to see a clear solution to it - least something that we can all think will work.

272

(9 replies, posted in Questions)

Render wrote:

hahaha I said that a million times tongue

And you've been wrong, a million times smile

273

(9 replies, posted in Questions)

It makes a difference to the balance. Like, a 500% attack, will absolutely decimate someone's defences, because the attack bonus is only applied to attacks.

Similarly, an Income bonus of 500% will way outskew gc production compared to what a mining facility or a refinement station makes.

So yea, it does makes a difference. 

But I know what you're getting at.  We can easily change these parameters based on feedback, too.

Jaguar wrote:

Conclusion: Don't focus on this issue. Focus on fixing the major problems in IC and this will fix itself over time.

Yes, that is our aim.  Band aid fixes have been applied a many and we've worked on a few core things too.  But if there are inherent issues, like the points you mentioned - then feel free to suggest ideas how to fix em.

Like, i completely agree about this one, for example:

Jaguar wrote:

3) The fighting mechanics in the game being too dependent on the economic part of the game - which makes being in a small fam a constantly losing and unenjoyable experience for most people, especially the newbies.

These days, 1 fam loses a fight, they give up the rest of the round.  It shouldn't be the case.  2 issues here
1) They're not really out for the round, but just think they are - so give up
2) It 'is' difficult to catch up to top fams (who have been ECOing away) so although you may somewhat recover, you may never get back up to top.

I've already mentioned to Stefan and the other mods (and all agree) that a fair few of our game changes recently (lesser build time for infra, improvements for pop banking, resource science, etc) - have all been targetting ECO.  It's time we need to give back to attacking, to restore the balance and make it more profitable to attack.  A situation where it's good to go war a family (for small gains, we dont want to condone destroying families) rather than just keep infraing.  So the question is, how do we address that issue.  I'm thinking "this" issue, is a subject for another thread - as it's quite important on it's own.

I have read all the posts, and will comment later - theres a few things that I know wont work here based on experience.

But mostly, one main thing you guys should consider is that when you say stuff like not allowing them to play (the inactives) or removing deletes or whatever, then people just don't end up playing.  It's no big loss to them if they dont play that IC round.  THey'd much rather just  keep randoming or not play, up until they find they someone they like, or a fam that is organised.

Least, that's what I've seen anyway.  You can see this with many of the old 'vets' too.

Also it was very common to give up a whole round earlier (when we had reshuffles once 2-3 rounds) to just to keep randoming into a fam you wanted.  So similarly here, I think people just wouldn't care.