Feedback, Gaining Resources.

PraetorSukeck
PraetorSukeck
Skilled Warrior
Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
edited 22 Sep 2013, 11:52PM
Here is my latest update on the revisions to the resource system.

Problem 1: Not enought to do in game, causes people to leave (its killing the game)
Problem 2: Over excessive carebearing
Problem 3: Lack of real strategy in game.
Problem 4: (minor) Graphical upgrades needed (Sectors are to empty)

I am looking to resolve the above problems through a change to the game. The best way i can do this is the following changes.

Step 1- Anti-camping revisions.
When a player receives a bubble, vega helps them with a donation of  15% Of their total storage in resources. This effect cannot occur more then once every 4 hours.

- Step 2, Removal of the mining system (the current one)
Remove mines from the base

- Step three, New mining Buildings.

There is now  Three simi-Large asteroid (about 35% of the complex Size) in each base. These are
Builds that deal with harvesting specific out in sector nodes. They are upgraded, To increase the Tab Size (like you get more fleets in ship bay). Each tab, grants 1 Mining ship per each type. Starts at 2 tabs.

Mining ships will come in three sizes, Researched in the ship bay, They will have a preset up design, and cannot be customized.

Miner 1 > Max 350k cargo
Miner 2 > Max 750k cargo
Miner 3 > Max 3 million Cargo

at level 5, each mining bay can have up to 6 cargo ships.

Planets will have resource mining locations, as well as upper level 30-40's in sector.

- Step 4, Using the new system
Players will get a very basic, 4 button interface in sector. It will be each button with its resource icon, You click it, to order the mining ships you have in each of the mining base to harvest that node.

These ships are defenseless, and can be attacked.

Each node will have a Resource amount, after that it will vanish (Expire), and another will spawn some where
in the sector. There is max of 3 of each type of node in the sector.

Asteroid belt - Minerals
Comet - Zynthium
Dark Star - Dark Matter
Nebula - Helium

This way, To accomplish gaining massive amounts of resource, you need to work for it, Players will need to micro-manage protecting their cargo ships from players, and vega raiders.


- Vega Raiders
Vega's will spawn at a level for each node type. Vega's will attack on a timer, Just like the resource ships on planets spawn, so light cargo ships are usually capable of avoiding attack because their harvest so quickly. Vega's spawn every 3 to 5 minutes.


Resource Harvesting
There will be 3 resource levels, each will grant resources to the cargo ship faster, the higher the level. 
Heavy miners are less likely to be killed, if you protect them, however vega spawns are very likely to kill light cargo ships
if they spawn on them while harvesting.

Level 30 - 75k Per minute
Level 35 - 100k Per minute
Level 40 - 200k Per minute


image
image
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    The hope with this system, is to encourage player pirating, and to encourage players to fight over resources more.

    Vega spawns will be changed with this system, they will fly from the nodes after capturing cargo, and return to planets (which makes more sense).
    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    To an extent I'll concede your points regarding problems, but the solutions... YIKES!

    Discuss Step 1: Kixeye donating res to someone that was just destroyed? That is counter intuitive, and frankly, I would just build and max out the size of my storages and ask people to hit me. I'd make it easy to do 25% so I just keep getting gifts from Kixeye and never have to chase res. BAD IDEA.

    Discuss Step 2: HORRIBLE idea. Do not remove miners. They are a good system for collecting res without the dread of farming Vegas...

    Discuss Step 3: New mining system is 'ok' but will tax the server when everyone has 18 automatic ships running around in addition their potentially 7 manual fleets. Let's not even discuss the fact that this server load occurs whether a person is playing or not...

    Discuss Step 4: These ships are defenseless? Gimme a break. I wouldn't build these things then - just attack everyone else's. Then you can imagine all the whining...

    Discuss Vega Raiders: You've got to be kidding me! You want to introduce the BP mining method here? And with defenseless ships? Just no. It's bad enough you even got to step 4, but this is just making things worse. NO ONE wants to do manual mining. And NO ONE wants to have to sacrifice fleets to auto-protect or escort miners. We'd MUCH rather just hit Vegas...

    Discuss Resource Harvesting: That's kinda fast... Granted you have to deal with attacking Vegas that might render your work meaningless or inefficient, still this idea seems to make it such that mining is meant to be done EXCLUSIVELY while online. No no no.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you want a short and sweet method of improving res collecting (mining) without bad server load and online exclusive mining you can do the following:

    Step 1: Miners remain AS THEY ARE with asteroids.

    Step 2: "Raw Materials Efficiency Centers" will exist across the system, some in sector and some in planet. The point of these is to give bonuses to the speed your miners can mine. Planet centers will give low bonuses and sector centers will give higher bonuses. Level restrictions will not apply. Examples could be 2%, 4% and 6% within planet centers and 5%, 10% and 15% within sector centers.

    Step 3: Centers will have a defensible base that can be modified to the wishes of the owner, but NOT upgraded. Fleets can be told to defend the center in the same was as defending a base. The level of the center will define the level of defenses within it. Example, planet centers will have the structures of a Bridge 1, 2 and 3 and sector centers will have the structures of a Bridge 3, 4 and 5. This means that ALL the towers that can be built will be built and will be near-max tech on each. The center will be a 3x3 instead of 2x2 to make it harder to concentrate towers. Or perhaps even a 4x4.

    Step 4: Takeover of a center will require that the middle structure is destroyed, but not a 100% of the 'base'. Tower choices will not necessarily be optimal, so you'll have to use strategy to make do with what is available. Centers will receive 1hr DP upon takeover and will not function until they are repaired (1hr for the middle structure). The DP is to ensure people don't simply steal a Center after someone else has worked to take it.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    1. Yes, Because you get it now, and it would only be under specific situations, It'd be rather hard to abuse it, if you can only get it once or twice a day, And its not that much tbh.
    This about it, 15-20% of Res, Lets do some math here

    1m = 200k / 4 = 50k
    5m = 1m / 4= 200k
    25m= 5m / 4 = 1.25m
    50m= 10m / 4 2.5m

    You cant really do a whole lot with that.


    2. This is a common Concept, REPEATED FROM 1000 GAMES. its great, But its OLD. For the love of God, i want to find developers that DARE to do something NEW, and dont
    just copy everyone else. This System is just encouraging Care bearing. And lets face it, Miners are there for 1 reason > To stop abusive camping mechanics.

    The Purpose for the reason, and MAIN purpose for it, is three
    1. Draw resources from out side the base, (to encourage pvp)
    2. Strategy (to encourage strategy)
    3. To give us something to do while we wait for repairs

    3. I cant really explain exactly how i want it, i was trying to encorporate manual control, but fully auto makes more sense.
    When it comes to the numbers, we can lower it, if its needed, To say 5 for each person (Total) and just make 1 mining base, a smaller version
    of the complex > then add some nice graphics of ships flying in and out (one of the things i'd like to see out of this is more base activity).

    4. YES ABSOLUTELY DEFENSELESS > REASON so people can ATTACK AND STEAL THE RES!!! Its a PVP GAME! and i'd like to see more
    options then base hitting. Raiding is a GREAT feature to add to the game!!! as for not building, you'd have to tbh. Well if i was dev, i'd throw this in
    then nerf vega conflict Yields; Or i'd make vega's at the least fly from there, at a faster rate (making you work for your food).

    5 the raiders idea is up for grabs, but i was thinking about adding a random attack everyone so often, it could in theory be some sort of rarespawn,
    or we can just hold off on it. the whole point was for the auto mining to go when you sent them out and you watch them and defend it (as per example)
    or you can go to vega's while mining. but its to get sector activity up some, and to keep you awake!


    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    1. I can hold over 60M of EACH res in my 4 storages. I could EASILY double that and then some. Trust me, having some little punk wipe out my side structures and put me in a 2hr bubble for 20% res is HUGE. And FYI - I can imagine that since you are dividing by 4 that you are including AM - 2.5M AM several times a day via buddy bubble is pretty **** easy res... just sayin'

    2. I think you are confusing point 2 with another one. When you say REMOVE miners (and that is ALL you said) you are encouraging Vega farming. You are doing nothing else. So you actually ENCOURAGE Carebear nonsense with this since all the lower levels will have to farm more (which they have trouble doing as it is).

    3. I still don't agree with the idea, even on auto and with reduced numbers. The server load will still suck and no one wants to be doing repairs because some idiot runs around trolling miner bots (since they are defenseless...)

    4. You do realize what I said already? If you have defenseless miner bots with large capacities, people will just go around killing them all. Lots of whiners and lots of bullies. Not a great idea...

    5. You should NOT be advocating more time spent watching res pile up. That is NOT the point of the game. We are supposed to be battling, not tending to defenseless miners that may or may not get hit by an AI...

    Your ideas are literally so miserable it is hard to comprehend what system you think it would work without extreme abuse. And you failed to comment on my idea on how you could get somewhat what you want without destroying the game.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    1. NO. The res would only come AFTER A WIPE or VERY low amount of Life, BUT A MINIMUM COST of COMPLEX KILL. FURTHER, It would be LIMITED to ONCE A DAY (maybe twice) (Or every 12 or 24 hours).

    2. I mean remove the automatic "collect all" feature from the base. Because players cannot attack that (unless they base hit). If we move this External the base, you have to protect your miners, and your base increases strategy in game, and offering more options for gathering resources.

    3. i think you need to recognize, just because they are defenseless does not mean they are easy to kill. You got the two stuck in your head (as i see) and this is not the case. I was thinking of them having high rates of movement in combat (300-380ms depending on size) With automatic "retreat in game" Features. on top of that, i'd give them the equive of zynth armor 1, and shield 3, up to
    Zynth armor 3, shield 4 (for the largest).

    4. THAT IS THE POINT (CAREBEAR!!!!!!!!!!) ITS FOR PVP, THIS IS A PVP GAME (Ugh! the carebearing is tiresome) I feel like some times carebears are huddled in a group and say "hey guys, the pvpers need our love, lets go turn a pvp game into CAREBEARVILLE!!1.

    Seriously though, did you miss me saying 100 times to increase strategy and offer raiding options?

    5. Not advocating more time spent, I am advocating faster collection rates when online, with lower collection rates when offline. So that when your online, you can actually do something.

    6. No, They are not. I get the feeling you want me to take combat vs other players out of the game, dont you?
    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    Did you really just accuse me of being a Carebear? Omfg... wow. I can't believe the irony. Well seems like you have troubles reading. Heck, your ideas and responses remind me of Mikael a lot.

    A couple points:

    - If you make the miner bots have auto retreat and high speed such that they can't be caught, then there is no point making them attackable. But if you make them able to be caught (by say a Rear 5 Frigate) then ONLY the higher level players with Rear 5 Frigates will be able to do this, but nonetheless they'll have fun raping every miner fleet around for laughs. Trust me... this happened in BP where ships could actually defend themselves. You don't want defenseless ships here. It would be even worse.

    - This idea does NOT contribute to PvP, it contributes to tedium. Fact is that you can get res faster and safer from Vegas than from this. You can yank 2M from a 40 with two fleets of well designed Harriers. This miner idea will make people abandon mining altogether (or be something only lower levels do - and then get bullied and raped by higher levels).

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Did you even TRY to read the idea I came up with?
    If you want a short and sweet method of improving res collecting (mining) without bad server load and online exclusive mining you can do the following:

    Step 1: Miners remain AS THEY ARE with asteroids.

    Step 2: "Raw Materials Efficiency Centers" will exist across the system, some in sector and some in planet. The point of these is to give bonuses to the speed your miners can mine. Planet centers will give low bonuses and sector centers will give higher bonuses. Level restrictions will not apply. Examples could be 2%, 4% and 6% within planet centers and 5%, 10% and 15% within sector centers.

    Step 3: Centers will have a defensible base that can be modified to the wishes of the owner, but NOT upgraded. Fleets can be told to defend the center in the same was as defending a base. The level of the center will define the level of defenses within it. Example, planet centers will have the structures of a Bridge 1, 2 and 3 and sector centers will have the structures of a Bridge 3, 4 and 5. This means that ALL the towers that can be built will be built and will be near-max tech on each. The center will be a 3x3 instead of 2x2 to make it harder to concentrate towers. Or perhaps even a 4x4.

    Step 4: Takeover of a center will require that the middle structure is destroyed, but not a 100% of the 'base'. Tower choices will not necessarily be optimal, so you'll have to use strategy to make do with what is available. Centers will receive 1hr DP upon takeover and will not function until they are repaired (1hr for the middle structure). The DP is to ensure people don't simply steal a Center after someone else has worked to take it.
    Your idea is a lot like BP which is a total fail. You'd know if you played the game. My idea is more like WC where there is TONS of PvP action relating to the capture and holding of depos. So why don't you get some experience with gaming tactics and see which one works. I can tell you from EXPERIENCE that my idea functions and yours does not. This is not some theoretical environment here...
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    Such that they can't be caught = Wont happen, Especially with the defense levels i mentioned above.

    But if you make them able to be caught (by say a Rear 5 Frigate) = You dont balance a game on "additions" in it, You balance is on "base stats". If you try to balance on additions, you work against yourself, and will never work it out, you will always be trying to fiddle with something. So when dealing with game design, You work on base stats, And then use additions (like weapons upgrades, or in this case rear thrusters) As a means to improve /counter.

    So at this rate, the only thing that will not catch 200 ms, Is destroyers, and the only thing that wont catch 260, for example is battleship/destroyer.

    This means if we stick the run speeds at 200-260, Frigates, cruisers and harriers can catch them.

     Fact is that you can get res faster and safer from Vegas than from this = now you are working against yourself, you just said a minute ago, that vega attacks was bad.
    now you are learning and understanding game balance.

    Your idea is a lot like BP which is a total fail = There is lots of ways to implement an idea, and you ( and everyone else who thinks like you, which is a lot btw) needs to step back, and either 1. Learn game design or 2. Apply some logic and reasoning.

    Small mechanical changes, and make a system or break it and just because it failed in BP does not mean it will hear. KEEPING IN MIND I DID NOT PLAY BP MUCH AND I AM NOT TRYING TO COPY ITS DESIGNS!!

    Let me give you an example of how this is the case. 

    In eve, we used 100% tax system in our corp. This was a full communistic society, And it worked, and it worked really well. so why is it everyone else who tried in eve, failed?
    Because of a factor that was not the case with the fail cases. 

    So, in this example, I want you to get through your head something very important that is a life lesson

    Fail in another place Does not equal fail in your space (your experience)
    image
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    My idea is more like WC where there is TONS of PvP action relating to the capture and holding of depos

    I wanted to address this separately.

    we can create capture point systems in the game. This is where the "bonus resource production" stuff comes in. But if you implement it like its done in other games (Evony, WC, etc)
    then your using a terrible system.

    The reason for this, is again the use of POWER over TACTICS. and this leads to "pay to win" or bullying situations. in short,  ITS A EXCELLENT DESIGN CONCEPT WITH TERRIBLE IMPLEMENTATION.

    What we should do is look at a way of changing this system, so that its more tactical in nature, Or works against Power housing a location.

    the point of holding it is for resources, So we can conclude the following

    Control of A/this control point = Resources.

    Then we look at reasons for the problems

    Near Indefinite control = Higher level player 
    Lack of tactics or tactical game play

    So the solution is to find a way to make it tactical in nature, and prevent a higher level of taking it. Here are some idea's

    1. Level restriction on controlling the point ( each resource field, has a level range, for example, since in VC we use 5 levels, we will use the current system) which is as follows

    Level 5-8
    Level 8-11
    Level 12-15
    Level 16-19
    Level 20-23
    Level 24-27
    Level 27-30

    This way, you are competing with people in or near your range.

    On top of this, we create another factor. Expiration of the resource, Or a mechanic that reduces its bonus rate.

    What you do is create a system where, It has a "quality" level. starting at 100%, The resource will harvest up to X bonus value (for this example, we will use 100,000 Res).

    As each drop happens, You low a %.As each drop happens, the production rate drops. For example, If you gain a level 30 field, Which is + 25% Mining rate, you lose 1% for every 1% lose in quality.  when a patch reaches a level, Like 5% It becomes unharvestable for a period of time , Lets say 24 hours. What this will do is cause players to look for higher Quality Patches, and encourage jumping from resource to resource.

    this will create tactical-capture of the bonus systems.

    Lastly, I would create a system of capture and defend much different then parking a few fleets in there. This is the primary source of higher level = keep resource comes from.
    Some sort of tactical Set up vs tactical set up "combat" automation is a good way to do this. Sort of like Speed chest with spaceships, Or something similar Is what i am thinking
    about atm, though im unsure.

    another option may be, you attack with a fleet that has X Attack power, and X Defense power, and then its a matter of numbers vs numbers, rather then ships vs ships, and losing
    stuff.

    One things for sure, I am against the whole capture, and defend with a parked fleet bit.


    image
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    Oh ya, and btw, i'd add level 30-40 capture points in sector! if not, i'd add all capture points there, Tbh. Or atleast, make access to them required by sector. On planet stuff like that is kinda Bleh, but in sector, lots more strategy and stuff can take place.
    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    Are you even reading my posts? I think you are intentionally quoting everything I say out of context...

    1) If the miner bots CAN be caught and are defenseless, THEY WILL DIE. It is simply a matter of time. And no one hits fleets with Destroyers so get real... So my point stands, people will troll across the galaxy hitting people's miner bots and make them whine like babies...

    2) If you make mining HARDER than Vegas, you destroy the point in doing it. The reason for Vegas is if you want to accumulate res FASTER than miners based on effort. But currently, with properly upgraded miners you can easily haul 3M+ per day of each res (at level 8 all around). What you are proposing not only reduces that, but makes it take manual work... people won't utilize it. You'd be destroying a useful and essential part of the game.

    3) I don't care if you have played BP or not - your idea is very much like it. And I've personally witnessed the extreme fail of it. Worse yet, is that unlike BP where ships can defend themselves you intend to make them die without putting up a fight. That is just stupid. It will fail HARDER than BP. You need to understand, I've personally witnessed the effect of the idea you've described. IT DOES NOT END WELL.

    4) Your entire address to my WC like idea is missing the point, and proving that you don't play WC either. While depos are far from the strongest means of gaining res, they improve PvP to an extent and allow for additional pileup of res. Do the higher levels steal a lot of them? Of course. But catering to specific levels will net you a disaster. More importantly, my WC like idea embraces the idea of maintaining miners and asteroids which yours does not. Also, in both BP and WC there are RGs that produce res without the need to leave the base. Kixeye will NOT change that. This is now their 4th game with that integral part of the base.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    1) If the miner bots CAN be caught and are defenseless, THEY WILL DIE. 

    This is why you have your fleets, To intercept > as i said to give you something to do. either raid, or protect yourself/others.

    2. very much like it.

    Does not make it the same, as i gave an example of a few small things that can make worlds of difference, what you should do is bring up what you feel is wrong
    or bad, and we can create a solution to that problem.

    3. you don't play WC either.

    Like BP, i played for a short time, but both games are a Rework of the SAME OLD THING and im just bored of that system.

    image
  • The Black Skull
    The Black Skull
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2012 Posts: 506
    "Heck, your ideas and responses remind me of Mikael a lot."

    Hasn't clicked yet has it =))
  • TheHolyAsdf
    TheHolyAsdf
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jun 2013 Posts: 1,389
    Uhmari is Mikael_A
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    edited 18 Sep 2013, 2:21PM
    Identity is irrelevant. If you want to ad-hom attack, then i'll just ignore reply's and talk to intelligent people, its just that simple.

    Attack the argument, not the person.
    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    "Heck, your ideas and responses remind me of Mikael a lot."

    Hasn't clicked yet has it =))
    Uhmari is Mikael_A
    That thought already crossed my mind. But I've accused people of being multis before and been wrong so I tend to take a cautious stance on it now.
    Uhmari said:
    Identity is irrelevant. If you want to ad-hom attack, then i'll just ignore reply's and talk to intelligent people, its just that simple.

    Attack the argument, not the person.
    We aren't attacking your identity. This side conversation is just a tidbit that is actually off topic. Don't mind it.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    Uhmari said:
    1) If the miner bots CAN be caught and are defenseless, THEY WILL DIE. 

    This is why you have your fleets, To intercept > as i said to give you something to do. either raid, or protect yourself/others.

    2. very much like it.

    Does not make it the same, as i gave an example of a few small things that can make worlds of difference, what you should do is bring up what you feel is wrong
    or bad, and we can create a solution to that problem.

    3. you don't play WC either.

    Like BP, i played for a short time, but both games are a Rework of the SAME OLD THING and im just bored of that system.
    1. You are still failing to address my concerns here. Even with escort fleets you are still just imitating BP (a failed system of off-base res collecting).

    2. No one is going to want to give up the ability to mine res without risk for an idea that has risk when farming Vegas is equal risk to what you are suggesting. In fact, we all know what Vegas are made of and can come prepared appropriately.

    3. They are not the same thing. They are both MMORTS to some degree but they have wildly different mechanics. BP has 5 ship fleets with equal ground fleet battles. They have external 'mining' like your idea (which failed) and cargos (much like Vegas). Each ship takes forever to build and is highly customized. WC has unlimited numbers but a housing limit on attacks. Platoon battles are never equal (one person can use air) and the external 'mining' does not require the presence of units. Additionally, 'cargos' are bases instead of 'fleets'. There are many times more units but none are (were) customizable (until recently). Two very different systems. VC is modeled after BP in many regards, NOT WC. But BP is a failure that is tanking and will be the 2nd game that Kixeye stops developing at some point. So I'd rather not imitate too much. Otherwise this game will be doomed too.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    I dont multi-account. Its the same account with a rename, But back to the topic.
    image
  • The Black Skull
    The Black Skull
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2012 Posts: 506
    edited 19 Sep 2013, 9:54PM
    We know.<br>
    As for attacking the argument, that has been done successfully with every argument you have put forward so far. However rather than accept your idea(s) won't work you simply try to change things and make it up as you go along.<br>
    Granted you put thought into them but you never put any thought into the effects or consequences of your ideas which is where you fall down every time.
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    ^^^ Exactly what he said. We need some realistic replies here. We're a little sick and tired of providing proof that your idea will fail only to see you repost it with slightly different words/numbers. It isn't the words or numbers that matter. The ideas themselves fail. Try something else. I suggested an idea here and you completely shut it down without thinking about it nor properly refuting it.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    no, They will work, you are just not open to the idea, So where's what im gona do.
    Im just gona flag the replies as trolls, since you just wanna attack, and give up before you even FINISH READING THE POST!

    If you dont like the idea's, DONT COME TO MY THREADS. ITS SIMPLE!
    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    I've already read your entire idea and posted my concerns REPEATEDLY and you haven't addressed a single concern. Then I posted an idea and you skimmed it and didn't provide any in-depth feedback. So how about you stop whining about being trolled since you ARE NOT and start taking the replies seriously. Just because we don't agree with you does not make us trolls. In fact, YOU are the one that is not paying proper attention to what people are saying. YOU are the one behaving as a troll.

    I will say this ONE LAST TIME:

    Your idea is very nearly IDENTICAL to the current mining method of Battle Pirates with one exception: The fleet that mines and the fleet that defends against attacks are separate in your example, where as in BP they are the same fleet. Other than that they are EXACTLY the same. And since the concept was such a massive failure in BP and rarely used I can say with CERTAINTY that it will fail here. I have personally witnessed the implementation of your idea in a game and it does not work. There is no 'slight alteration' that can make it work. It simply fails as a concept. The details are irrelevant.

    The idea I gave you is very similar (but not exact) to War Commander's concept of external mining. They call them deposits and instead of doing a bonus % they do a raw extraction rate (without the need to hit 'bank'). But the concept details are irrelevant. What matters is that depos provide a PvP concept in WC THAT WORKS. People actually acquire these things and fight over them. Not like BP where a vast majority of the mining nodes are left wide open an untouched.

    So why don't you get some experience with Kixeye's games and learn the things that will work and what will not. I am very convinced at this point that you are a young child and does not have the life experience of how to handle folks that contradict his opinions. Well guess what: Life gets harder than these forums will ever seem. Learn to handle other people's arguments. And before you get childish and flag my post again, do a better job of supporting your idea and crush mine.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • The Black Skull
    The Black Skull
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2012 Posts: 506
    Uhmari said:
    no, They will work, you are just not open to the idea, So where's what im gona do.
    Im just gona flag the replies as trolls, since you just wanna attack, and give up before you even FINISH READING THE POST!

    If you dont like the idea's, DONT COME TO MY THREADS. ITS SIMPLE!


    Here's how forums generally work.

    You post an idea.

    People view the idea.

    If they like it they will say so or hit like. If they don't like it they will say so or hit dislike.

    In either case they may leave replies saying whether or not they like it, why they do or don't like it and possibly make suggestions as to how to improve it or argue against it, usually providing clear and valid points as to the pros/cons of the idea.

    Most folk will generally read the whole post and then answer, which a few have done with yours yet because you don't like that your ideas have been successfully refuted you throw a little tantrum and tell those folk "DONT COME TO MY THREADS".

    If we didn't read the threads how would you gain any feedback, positive or negative?

    This is hardly in the spirit of posting in a public forum now is it? If you don't want folk to 'come to your threads' then I'm afraid the only way to stop them doing so is to stop making said threads.

  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    If they like it they will say so or hit like. If they don't like it they will say so or hit dislike.

    Except, your not interested in discussing the thread, Just trollling it, SO im gona just flag the post each time you guys go off topic
    and start character attacks. 
    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    No, YOU are the one not discussing it. You are ignoring our issues with your idea, ignoring our logic and simply restating your opinion over and over with new words/numbers. Argue properly.

    Since you refuse to address my statements and I am unwilling to post them repeatedly I will simply quote myself and expect you to read it and respond accordingly:
    I will say this ONE LAST TIME:

    Your idea is very nearly IDENTICAL to the current mining method of Battle Pirates with one exception: The fleet that mines and the fleet that defends against attacks are separate in your example, where as in BP they are the same fleet. Other than that they are EXACTLY the same. And since the concept was such a massive failure in BP and rarely used I can say with CERTAINTY that it will fail here. I have personally witnessed the implementation of your idea in a game and it does not work. There is no 'slight alteration' that can make it work. It simply fails as a concept. The details are irrelevant.

    The idea I gave you is very similar (but not exact) to War Commander's concept of external mining. They call them deposits and instead of doing a bonus % they do a raw extraction rate (without the need to hit 'bank'). But the concept details are irrelevant. What matters is that depos provide a PvP concept in WC THAT WORKS. People actually acquire these things and fight over them. Not like BP where a vast majority of the mining nodes are left wide open an untouched.

    So why don't you get some experience with Kixeye's games and learn the things that will work and what will not. I am very convinced at this point that you are a young child and does not have the life experience of how to handle folks that contradict his opinions. Well guess what: Life gets harder than these forums will ever seem. Learn to handle other people's arguments. And before you get childish and flag my post again, do a better job of supporting your idea and crush mine.

    I don't play much anymore =(
  • No..Beard
    No..Beard
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Jun 2010 Posts: 3,793
    Uhmari said:
    If they like it they will say so or hit like. If they don't like it they will say so or hit dislike.

    Except, your not interested in discussing the thread, Just trollling it, SO im gona just flag the post each time you guys go off topic
    and start character attacks. 
    image

    BP ID: 1038         WC ID: 1476        VC ID: 18589     Tome ID: 3698   

    image

  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    I have looked into the feedback of these comments, and come up with some revisions i'd like to get others opinions on.

    The idea i wanted to look at was changing the gathering of resources into a more pvp-related raiding style option for the game.

    I was thinking what we could do is set up the cargo ships, to gather at the nodes in planets (and add some in sector space to) that
    equal a special cargo for each respective type of resource. This would boost their mining rate, 1% Per a load, for x duration of time.

    This way we still gain the benefits of 

    -No higher level bullies camping a bonus location
    -Increased production for all who invest time in this avenue
    -Increased options for resource income

    Plus we can the added bonus of making "miners" more attractable to build for those who avoid it.
    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    Well thank you for finally giving a little on your stance. At least now your talking fairly reasonable. But might I include a few minor notes that are really important:

    As is done in WC, instead of limiting the level of player you can attack at the node, it should be that the nodes themselves have levels. So anyone within, say, +-10 levels of a node can hit it. So potentially someone 20 levels below another player can be hit, but not by anyone higher than that. And in most cases the people that are higher level than a node will have a constant possession of it. If you have nodes that range from level 5 to 40 with 5 level intervals you can spread the love out rather fairly. In this way the 'brackets' you like are based on the node instead of the players to avoid issues I won't discuss at this time since they are close to irrelevant. Suffice it to say, basing the attackability of a node on the node level deals with level differences better than basing it on the player level. And as you pointed out, it DOES prevent higher levels from camping out ALL the nodes and preventing lower levels from having them.

    Also as you mentioned, I agree with the idea of having a % boost to production. I forget what game I've seen this done but it works far better than the BP concept of cold hard resources which can be stolen by bullies. As for how the % boost would be applied though, I would suggest that as long as the fleet controls the node the % is applied. Possibilities of Vegas recovering their nodes through periodic attacks could exist. But ultimately, each fleet you leave out is another fleet you cannot use in FvF/Bases so there is that disadvantage as well to balance out the boost.

    So overall I have no major complaints on your revisions.
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    I have already posted this in the suggestion above, if you would of read it...

    This is exactly what i am talking about when you come and say things...
    READ >

     Level restriction on controlling the point ( each resource field, has a level range, for example, since in VC we use 3 levels, we will use the current system) which is as follows

    Level 5-8
    Level 8-11
    Level 12-15
    Level 16-19
    Level 20-23
    Level 24-27
    Level 27-30


    As for the % rate, there are lots of solutions to this. It would need some thought.

    i tihnk the best way to deal this is to create another panel

    image

    Something like this.

    Each crystal can act like a coin.

    You put the crystals in the mines, each crystal gives a bonus for a duration

    Level 1 crystal + 5% Production for 10 minutes
    Level 2 crystal + 10% Production for 20 minutes (field level 10-14)
    Level 3 crystal + 15% Production for 30 minutes (field level 15-19)
    Level 4 crystal + 20% Production for 40 minutes (field level 20-24)
    Level 5 crystal + 25% Production for 50 minutes (field level 25-29)
    Level 6 crystal + 30% Production for 60 minutes (field level 30-34)
    Level 6 crystal + 35% Production for 60 minutes (field level 35-39)
    Level 6 crystal + 50% Production for 60 minutes (field level 40)

    Mining Each crystal duration is dependent upon the level of the field.

    image
  • Krazie243
    Krazie243
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined May 2010 Posts: 10,669
    Um... don't over think it dude. Just give a bonus for controlling a node. Nothing fancy otherwise you'll ruin the game...
    I don't play much anymore =(
  • PraetorSukeck
    PraetorSukeck
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Jul 2013 Posts: 420
    And thats why i dont want to talk to you curtis, You dont read anything in the threads i post.

    I have mentioned over 1000 bigillion times, That Doing it like the other games just causes massive problems, From bullying to insufficient node access / bonus access to all.

    And you come back with statements like that.. I um sure, its  just lack of creativity, experience and knowledge, with out a doubt.
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.