Starfleet Commander Forum

Starfleet Commander => Conquest Universe => Topic started by: Conan on April 11, 2014, 07:24:20 AM

Title: hydro cost
Post by: Conan on April 11, 2014, 07:24:20 AM
I would suggest making fleet movements in conquest to cost 1% of what they are now. That would make fleet movements possible which would increase PvP.   Then we would have to FRS or buy p mode to keep our ships safe.  The hunt could begin again.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: phatboy83 on April 11, 2014, 08:16:40 AM
All I've done in past 13 weeks is PvP.
I doubled my dsp in about 5 hours yesterday
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Ali Baba on April 11, 2014, 08:19:20 AM
Agreed
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 11, 2014, 10:11:49 AM
@ conan.

1% is to big of a reduction.

Simply reducing hydro cost is not the wright to do it.  It should be something, where tested in conquest could be introduced into older & newer universes (a technology was suggested and would be the best way)  That therefore would give a smaller, but additive reduction in hydro cost per each level.

@ phatty.

Yes you have you dog....... but then your still at a stage where hydro is more efficiently used in attacks (at some of our levels we just look at the hydro cost and call 911 as we are having a heart attack)

Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Conan on April 11, 2014, 01:19:37 PM
@kru, I disagree, Conquest has a unique problem so it needs a unique solution. Maybe 1% is too low, but going to 50% won't help significantly. 5% or 10% might be good enough.

@phatboy, even with your dsp I still outrank you. And I have done nothing but harvest and build for months. Without credits I can only move my heph. When it sits for hours I am lucky to get probed even once. Might have something to do with less than 100 players being able to probe me and half of them have quit.  You will hit the wall eventually, very soon if you don't merchant trade for hydro.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 11, 2014, 01:35:08 PM
@kru, I disagree, Conquest has a unique problem so it needs a unique solution. Maybe 1% is too low, but going to 50% won't help significantly. 5% or 10% might be good enough.

ye trouble is, being who i am in conquest i have a more relaistic understanding.

if my fleet cost 10Q to move, making it only 1% of that would be 100T

Now, whilst on the surface thats great news, it also means i am more likely to be able to attack people and territories none stop, making myself ineviatbly (N) to every player.

I think a 50% reduction is more likely, and more balanced....means instead of 10Q, i only spend 5Q, means BFG still have a need for players to merchant for hydro.

At 100T hydro for that movement, and trading (right now) 5.2Q hydro per trade......thats 52 attacks or movements before having to merch again....this of course reduces the need (as far as bfg go) for us to spend as much (infact, barley anything)

sadly, you have to look at the bigger and wider picture, players merching/spending say 1Q per week actually offers little to no benefit to them (by reducing hydro cost to 1% of current spends.....i mean thats a 99% reduction) where in reality, those like me in the top 5 will benefit like you can never imagine.

Thats why i say reducing to 1% of current cost is way too much
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Conan on April 11, 2014, 01:49:26 PM
Apparently you missed where I said that 5% or 10% might work. 50% is a bandaid on a severed arm.  And here is how they could test it. Create a 2 week commander that is free that gives a 90 or 95% reduction in fleet hydro costs. Put a message to all players indicating that this is a test and may or may not be repeated.  2 weeks should be long enough to see the effect.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 11, 2014, 02:05:41 PM
no, i did not miss a thing you said.

even reducing it to 5% or 10% is going to create a situation where i describe.  Sure in the fuuture in will benefit people more as they grow, but it benefits those directly at the top, in an immediate and direct fashion.

10% of 10Q is still 1Q, a saving of 9Q hydro for me.  This is why i would not foresee any reduction greater than 50%
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Conan on April 11, 2014, 03:51:47 PM
And you foresee everything.  You latched onto the 1% like a dog on a bone (funny considering your avatar).  I have been in this uni since it's beginning and I don't like that "ye" lecture almost EVERYBODY about how their opinion is wrong.  BFG will probably not make any significant change to the hydro in this uni.  It took them forever to dump the mine caps and that isn't nearly enough.  A change to 50% will not have much effect.  Those that are willing to pay for hydro will still need to do so but it will still be prohibitive to attack anything out of system.  Without paying I cannot even move res from my heph.  This uni has gone where no other uni has gone before, into a wall.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 11, 2014, 04:19:20 PM
And you foresee everything.  You latched onto the 1% like a dog on a bone (funny considering your avatar).  I have been in this uni since it's beginning and I don't like that "ye" lecture almost EVERYBODY about how their opinion is wrong.  BFG will probably not make any significant change to the hydro in this uni.  It took them forever to dump the mine caps and that isn't nearly enough.  A change to 50% will not have much effect.  Those that are willing to pay for hydro will still need to do so but it will still be prohibitive to attack anything out of system.  Without paying I cannot even move res from my heph.  This uni has gone where no other uni has gone before, into a wall.

ok, i can see we are going nowhere here.

you have obviously no idea who i am in game, and why my statement is not opinion but FACT.

You wish toi cry about it, thats fine go ahead.
BFG will never reduce hydro cost of moving fleets by 99%, 95% or 90% so you need to drop that avenue right now.

I was one of many who petitioned to have the caps on mines removed, because as a player i was able to show how these caps were ineffective, and unbeneficial to player base.

do i frosee everything, no....but i don't need to foresee anything to know what problems you and 99% of the other players will face as you grow your accounts more and build a massive fleet (as i have)

50% reduction, is a more pheaseable and realistic request, your not grasping the numbers yet as your not there to grasp, and i, a player who is there is trying to explain to you why you silly askings of a 99%, 95% or 90% will not work.

so, lets explain it once and for all, and hope that you understand, that whilst your proposal is a good one, the stupid numbers of reduction are not.

these figures are based solely on the use of my athena only

in system @ 100% hydro cost Hydrogen consumption: 12,777,156,257,953,654
1 system over @ 100% hydro cost Hydrogen consumption: 35,366,441,114,266,736
10 systems over @ 100% hydro cost Hydrogen consumption: 46,191,026,721,790,910

so, what i am saying, as your hydro consumption is not at that level, reducing it by 99%, 95% or 90% benefits players like me.

Reducing it by 50% benefits me, but also benfits everyone else now and for the future play.

now you see, why those amounts of reduction you suggest will not work, it allows me to do an insystem attack at eiether 120T (99% reduction) 1.2Q (90% reduction)

also means, those who merch vioa purchased credits seriously benefit over those who do not
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Conan on April 11, 2014, 04:38:01 PM
Sure, I know who you are in game and know that you are ranked #1.  Apparently I hit a nerve.  I understand everything you are saying but you don't seem to comprehend that a 5 or 10% will help everybody somewhat equally relative to their fleet size.  Yes, it will save you more but only because it costs you more.  You are N to almost everybody as it is and they are conversely 'n' to you so you can't attack them now or if there is lower hydro costs.  If they do drop it to 50% it will probably be with a really special commander that can be bought and it will then only help the few that will buy it and it will only have a minimal effect on the game.  I am done with this conversation as I am sure that you will respond with reams of info proving your point.  I have a life to live and a few other fleets to check in on.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 11, 2014, 05:04:34 PM
well, ok....lets drop hydro down 1% cost, make me a saving of 99%

i will just going around the systems and attacking all and every territory i come across....and well, if i am not successful, well i only burned 120T hydro instead of upto 12Q hydro..

of course, your right, how silly of me to think that making a change that is only going to benefit a few players more than most, and of course, reduce credit purchase to an all time low

lol, i'm behind you 100% now.....push for bfg to save me $40 per month, and be able to make 52 attacks per day on everyones terris :D
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Conan on April 11, 2014, 05:34:40 PM
See, you can't let go of the 1%.  At the 5 or 10% you would only do 5 or 10 per day.  And really, how much bigger can your fleet get before it's too big for the game anyway?  You're already topped out on your hydro storage.  There are 2500 military targets and 100s or 1000s of other targets that will keep replenishing so the other players will have plenty of targets to hit.  So even your 50 a day would not be all that many.  And instead of merchant trades there would probably be more p mode use since someone might actually be able to attack.  I believe this game may be beyond saving.  Only about 70 players larger than myself can attack me and many of those have quit.  My fleet is sitting without enough hydro to do anything but a short FRS.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Darth Metz on April 12, 2014, 01:28:58 AM
I'd have to say I agree with kru on this.  I too have a very large fleet. It cost me a little over 4 quad just to launch all my athenas in system. Yes this is a game. But it is bfgs paycheck also. As much as I would love for a 1% 5% or even a 20% I do not see them going for it at all. And like kru says the big guys would get unbelievably big quick. I hold 6 or more mts on a daily basis now. If they done that I'd drop all but 1 planet  and hold 8 to 16 terris easy and would worry about the hydro cost.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Wingman on April 12, 2014, 10:00:05 PM
Really Conan?  I see that you have taken a conversation from amicable to argumentative in exactly 2 breaths.  I agree with Kru as he has the math down. 
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Pie on April 13, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
I still think hydro fuel cost should be set to zero.

Will it enable top players to freely roam the universe taking out any and all occupied territories?


Absolutely!
Its a war game and you have to defend yourself from such attacks, there is no fool proof method in place for destroying a player held territory fleet.

Lots of top players holding loads of Territories?


Maybe, but they have to put in the time to take, hold and collect and you are still limited by the amount of fleet spots you have, it soons gets a logistical juggling act and if you're willing to put the effort in, then why not? Though I can assure you hephs will be parking on debris fields everywhere and having a literal field day! Pretty soon you would realise that holding too many will just benefit your enemies (or your alliance, a good thing), so a balance would need to be found.

Will credit purchases drop to an all time low?


Nope, I don't believe so.
There is a very healthy unbalance of non-hydro ships flying around at present, that will inevitably get corrected as players realise how poor thier fleet compositions are and rush to correct that. Higher level foundries will get built to help with mass builds and people will still spend on p-mode.

My absolute main reason for zero cost though is it will bring back balance of what people are willing to pay, in its current form the costs are increasing which will inevitably lead to a dead uni, regardless of any percentage reduction ( A 1%,10%,50% reduction will only be a temp fix, it will still lead to what is happening now,only difference being the time it takes to get there) and with hydro purchase limits in place. We can CHOOSE to spend hydro on new ships or new builds and not be 'persuaded' to save/purchase x amount for fuel and above all, you can comfortably spend only want you want to spend, without running out of options.

Of course players who spend the most will usually end up at the top, but thats never really changed from uni to uni, what this will do is put the risk back into the game, I miss getting probed/attacked and have got complacent in my actions ( I even got caught in the downtime, most exciting thing to happen for ages and never even see it, lol)

Anyway, this is just my opinion on this, feel free to correct any blatantly obvious points I may have overlooked ;)

Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Ali Baba on April 13, 2014, 12:36:06 PM
I still think hydro fuel cost should be set to zero
Not going to Quote the whole thing.

But yea great read and i would like to say i agree, Thank you for summing it up.
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 13, 2014, 12:48:39 PM
to be fair, this is now an illiogical discussion...

the drawbacks of 0%, 1%, 5% or even 10% hydro costs are these:

1) Players holding territories cannot defend themselves against the top players, having a high hydro output becomes their only defence.

2) Fleetspot allocation is irrelevant, you shouldn't be where you are in the top 10 with anything less than AI20.

3) Credit purchase WILL drop, that is a guranteed certianty.  I mean why would i now spend $40 per month if i did  not have to buy my feul? Most likely i would now only $15 - $20 per month.

4) Higher level foundarys, ROFL have you looked at the cost? Seriously have you? Even merching at the rate of HS 54 i have to do 6 trades for foundary 39, and then 12 for foundary 40.....Costs spiral out of control and 99% of the players (including me) will not spend $5 - $10 to upgrade a building.

6) P modes will be less purchased, with 0 hydro for feeltsaving they willopt to fleetsave instead of p mode, again...I know of plenty of players who have said the exact same thing...ONLY reason they p-mode is because it is too expensive to fleetsave (expensive in terms of credits) Right now it is cheaper to p-mode than purcahse the merchant for hydro.

Also, i don't think pie understands, this universe has an END......So, a temp fix could, and will most likely be a perma fix.

Eventually, your numbers are not going to be supported by BFGs systems and then it is game over for you ( i am almost there, only permitted one more upgrade on a building, then i cannot upgrade it anymore)

In any regard, anything below a 50% reduction is an absurd request

Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Darth Metz on April 13, 2014, 07:02:38 PM
Well said kru
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 13, 2014, 07:47:05 PM
Well said kru

hey, i would love to have 0 hydro cost....being ranked 1 in most ctas i know outright how it would benefit me...

right now truth is i bring in well over
ore
3,985,400,714,578,930,399
Crystal
2,035,079,152,633,467,768

every single day....with 0 hydro on harvesting and attacking i would be able to triple if not quadrouple that amount...

it would also mean i wouldn't hesitate to do cross galaxy attacks.  I am speaking realisticly about how it would not be a good idea, and yes....i am saying to BFG we all need help with hydro, but not the kind of help some players are requesting
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Pie on April 13, 2014, 08:34:37 PM
to be fair, this is now an illiogical discussion..

I don't believe it is, as long as I can see reasons why a zero fuel cost is beneficial to the community as a whole, how is that illogical?

the drawbacks of 0%, 1%, 5% or even 10% hydro costs are these:

1) Players holding territories cannot defend themselves against the top players, having a high hydro output becomes their only defence.


Territories were designed to be attacked, they are supposed to be a major part of pvp - not become non-attackable because of fuel costs! + if they get attacked its a simple case of withdrawing, at no point do they hugely benefit top players because they are undefendable.

2) Fleetspot allocation is irrelevant, you shouldn't be where you are in the top 10 with anything less than AI20.


I was replying to Darth Metz.

... I'd drop all but 1 planet  and hold 8 to 16 terris easy and would worry about the hydro cost.

It would be difficult to benefit from holding too many as there is nothing to stop randoms landing hephs on territories and farming. Your reply seems to have missed that point.

3) Credit purchase WILL drop, that is a guranteed certianty.  I mean why would i now spend $40 per month if i did  not have to buy my feul? Most likely i would now only $15 - $20 per month.


Would'nt $15 - $20 per month be better than $0 per month for BFG?. Because once you can't afford fuel anymore are you really going to keep spending?

4) Higher level foundarys, ROFL have you looked at the cost? Seriously have you? Even merching at the rate of HS 54 i have to do 6 trades for foundary 39, and then 12 fodr founary 40.....Costs spiral out of control and 99% of the players (including me) will not spend $5 - $10 to upgrade a building.


I am well aware of the costs of Foundries. I was envisaging players upgrading to low to mid thirties but there will always be players that want to build higher and will convert hydro accordingly.

6) P modes will be less purchased, with 0 hydro for feeltsaving they willopt to fleetsave instead of p mode, again...I know of plenty of players who have said the exact same thing...ONLY reason they p-mode is because it is too expensive to fleetsave (expensive in terms of credits) Right now it is cheaper to p-mode than purcahse the merchant for hydro.

Players will always p-mode for convenience and to protect overnight builds yet to be forced because its cheaper than fuel costs seriously tells me somethings wrong with the game mechanic, do other unis suffer from this? or do they p-mode when they want to? I bet p-mode is alive and well in these unis.

Also, i don't think pie understands, this universe has an END......So, a temp fix could, and will most likely be a perma fix.

Of course I understand, I can see an end quite clearly. That is why I make these posts. With a zero fuel cost I don't believe it has to end, or as not as fast as the current set up will bring about.


Eventually, your numbers are not going to be supported by BFGs systems and then it is game over for you ( i am almost there, only permitted one more upgrade on a building, then i cannot upgrade it anymore)

So that building has reached its max level, why does it have to be 'game over' ?

In any regard, anything below a 50% reduction is an absurd request

In my opinion, anything above 50% is just as absurd, there is no solution to using a commodity in game that is essential to continued participation if that commodity continues to rise in a real world cost.

I'll make one request to BFG, if you are going to let this uni run its course and make no change, then just before you pull the plug, drop fuel costs to zero and see how it plays out.

Or have a hydro free weekend special.

That is all, thx for reading :P
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 13, 2014, 09:01:26 PM
pie man, you gotta learn how to quote properly lol

anyway, as i explained here:
http://forum.playstarfleet.com/index.php?topic=21445.0

There is a max, and it is 8.4Q hydro per trade.  Based on current hydro stats BFG will be committing suicide to allow 0 hydro feul cost.

Every building, every tech, every ship has a MAXIMUM you can go to as the SQL will not support the numbers. granted on ships/defences that will be a long time yet.

My response in regards to fleetspot allocation is and was aimed directly at you statement

Lots of top players holding loads of Territories?

Maybe, but they have to put in the time to take, hold and collect and you are still limited by the amount of fleet spots you have,

A top player should be finding it very easy to hold upto 10 territories, harvest and still have slots open for other attacks, transports deploys etc

seeing how you are top 10 in rank, but have yet to have a substantial fleet you cannot identify how backwards that statement is.

I assure you, 0 hydro cost will benefit those with major fleetage more than it will benefit 75% of the players combined.

With 0 hydro, i would happily lainch all day every day on every single territory you have with 300 trillion athena....why not it costs nothing, so i loose nothing and risk loosing nothing, but potentially have a lot to gain...

There are players ranked 200 - 100 that would have the same issue....5 galaxy attacks will become common place.

Whilst the game is a game, it has to identify at least loosley with reality, everything MUST cost something, thats the #1 rule of the game

You most likely do not remeber how hard the community fought to have hydro consumtpion removed for browsing each system (it used to cost 10 hydro to go system to system) and some people realisticvly expect BFG to do away with hydro cost?

To be fair, 0 hydro cost would mot likely mean i only buy maybe $5 per month, and thats a big maybe.

The problem is, hydro costs the same here as it does in every other universe, so you want a big fleet, you have to expcet to be able to feul the fleet....thats rule #1 of the shipbuilders guide

so, in relation to my point 4. why should i therefore no be penalised by not being willing to spend $5 or $10 to upgrade when i already spent those $$ on feulling my fleet for all these months as well as shipbuilding and upgrading? does that mean i should now be entitled to a refund?

Paying money is always expected to give one a potential advanatghe in how they can and cannot build...

6. There will be no overnight builds if people build correctly with higher level foundaries as your predicting....soounds like you one hand isn't to sure on what the other hand is typing.

People wont use p mode and will instead fleetsave......fleetsaving can easily be done to time your return, after all....you can now fleetsave galaxies away to time it right as it wont cost any hydro.

lol, pie it is a game, not a real world commodity/  Of course, if you wish to roll around with a super huge fleet, then be expected to fuel it.  You want to refer to the real world....well, if your car was a bitch eating petrol costing you 100 per week to run and you could no longer afford that with increasing petrol prices, you would simply get a smaller car......

To many players went full throttle  building ships and still are, not fully realising the implecations of the need to feul them....now, people do FULLY understand (like in your case how it is only going to get worse)

What i am trying to explain here, is that it would be nice for BFG to help us out in a manner which still calls for the need to trade.

Now, there are 2 ways which BFG could change things with immediate effect....

1- Reduce overall hydro cost by 50%anything more is just stupid as your asking BFG to give up their profit


2 -Increasing the amounts tradable per level of hydro store

I love free things, but also respect the financial drop you and anyone would be asking BFG to take by reducing hydro consumption to 0%, 1% or any other stupidly low number
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Deadeye on April 14, 2014, 11:54:14 AM
i like idea 2. it would work well for this uni!
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Ali Baba on April 22, 2014, 09:55:40 PM
Fort this would be a perfect place to post this Rant...

GTFO!!!!

Just upgraded my Hydro mine from Lv80 to Lv82 Right??

Production
Hydrogen: +32,908,366/hr
Energy: -461,013/hr

This was Lv80 ^^

Lv82 Production rate and stuff for Lv82

Production
Hydrogen: +39,908,366/hr
Energy: -461,013/hr

Its hardly Fun Loving moved!! this is bloody unfair beyond belief!! I want to be able to at least make a little bit of my hydro that i use!!! Without having to buy all my Hydro via trades.....I dont mind buying my trades i truly dont!! and thats the truth i am a paying customer! But what i dont want is to be building ships over night and not being able to FRS them because i have FRSed all my junk for the night and i have no hydro!!! or to make it even worse not enough hydro!!!

This is what i make per hour on that planet with the Lv82 Hydrogen mine 259,309,514

Unbloody Fair....
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 22, 2014, 10:26:15 PM
Hydrogen 849,063,027
what i make on a a level 88 per hour
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Deadeye on April 24, 2014, 02:22:28 AM
that is like nothing!
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Conan on April 25, 2014, 09:44:04 PM
Yup, hydro mines are basically useless.  The fleet sizes in this uni make even hydro for an FRS a purchase requirement.  Rarely will you find hydro of any amount sitting without enough def to make it unprofitably to attack for it.  The only way I FRS is with my heph or I would have quit this uni long ago.  I may tear down my biggest hydro mine. LOL
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Ali Baba on April 25, 2014, 09:49:42 PM
Conan Well said!

A player asked me how much does it cost me to FRS my ships overnight i said about 5K Credits...


Your Mind has Just Been Blown Away!!
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: Deadeye on April 25, 2014, 10:58:48 PM
OMG ali ahaha. I am starting to build up fast in conquest. Get ready for you and me to go hit somthing big ;)
Title: Re: hydro cost
Post by: kru on April 25, 2014, 11:02:50 PM
i'm thinking about building down and going to hit something small