> Ps wrote:

> These ideas are all interesting. It's frustrating to play in a small family, while larger families feed off of you. I don't like the third idea, because it'd be somewhat expensive to calculate.
What are some other ideas? All I can think of is adding a bonus to the defenders of a planet depending on how close it is to their home system.

Absolutely. I think exponential bonuses and penalties based on distance from home system,  and exponential bonuses and penalties resulting from difference in NW between families are the ticket to reducing long term raiding of smaller families. Attacking a much smaller family should be as much if not more of a risk (from the standpoint of cost/benefit) as attacking a family of the same size. As the mechanics stand right now, portal near the core of an half inactive family and you have a guaranteed glut of planets at the expense of their more active players, which kills their (real life) morale for the game. As long as the game mechanics allow this fast, easy, low risk, high reward path, people are going to use it. Time to put up some real road block and speed bumps. The "exponential restriction" approach will also shift combat to where it should be, along the borders of territory, rather than a monstrous army magically appearing in the middle of a territory and obliterating it. The game needs mechanics to produce 2 dimensional geographic limitations to the feasibility of large scale warfare.

i like <3

but u stil have to include attack bonus from the race/rc.

Change the score ranking:

Score would change according to the ranking of the fams you attack:

Fam bigger 5 points/successful attack
Fam smaller by 1: 4 point
Fam smaller by 2: 3pts
Fam smaller by 3: 2pts
Fam smaller by 4 : 1pts
Fam smaller by 5: 0 pt
Fam smaller by 6:-1pts

etc etc

Ofc size and nw would be calculated in this score in order that top fams dont finish behind bottom fam.
But a fam with biggest size and NW that farmed all round could be finally ranked behind another fam just behind that never farmed

The score concept might be nice, i also think we need to up the protection from 35% to 50% ?
It just sucks when you got big people all over your systems and you got a new player in your family who can [mess] it all up.

i dont understand what the current score does or how it adds up but nobody gives anything about it as it doesn't do anything
i believe the idea of reducing attacking strenght the further away you are from your home system is a bad idea.

I believe the answer lies in the score and Networth and maybe planet count.
I do believe a overal system of family Score, networth and planet count should be calculated.

Example:
fam 1 has 5mill Networth and 1000 planets
Fam 2 has 14mill networth and has 2300 planets

fam 1 gets a 1 or 2% in attacking strenght for every 100 planets. fam 2 has 1300 planets more so fam 1 gets a overal 13 / 26% more attacking strenght.
Fam 1 fails below 4900000 networth means they are under the 35% rule but since they are attacking the fam can still be attacked. Maybe we should try to make the 35% rule harder and once you fall below the 35% treshhold that you are immume to attacks. if fam 1 attacks again they lose 5% of that protection,  so now they need to be below 4.2mill networth to be immume to attacks if they still attack another 5%.

I rather see this happen with a 50% networth rule, so: 50% - 45% - 40% - 35%.  35% should be the hard cap, if the player still attacks fam 2 and when he is under the protection of the 35% rule in this case only he becomes attackable and the rest of his fam stays immume.