Starfleet Commander Forum

Starfleet Commander => Conquest Universe => Topic started by: The Real Highlander on April 14, 2015, 06:20:53 PM

Title: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 14, 2015, 06:20:53 PM
BFG I have created this thread in hopes that it will help you make the decision to invest more development time on Conquest. Request everyone especially the players that the main issues below affect, post your thoughts and comments on this thread or send BFG a trouble ticket regarding this thread. They are not going to make a change unless we speak up.

This issue primarily affects the players that are hunters who purchase credits but will affect all credit purchasers in the next 12 months in one way or another. Frankly in my opinion if the hunters start quitting then this universe dies much faster and I do not want that to happen. This issue does not affect the players that play for free.

The primary issue is the set limit on ships and defenses. The limits have caused a stalemate in the top 20% of players in the game and that number will continue to rise as the lower rank players reach the ship limits. 3 months ago this number was 10%.

Basically everyone has built the max defenses and ships and canít attack each other. There is no since in building more ships when you canít use them. There is no since in investing in hydro storage when you can buy hydro from me at much better rates. So something needs to be done before the paying player base starts quitting.

The solution is for BFG to remove the limits but it creates a bigger problem if they do. For example the cost of sending a 4 limit Athena fleet would be too much to deploy at current deployment costs. If BFG decides to remove the limits on ships and defenses then they need to reduce the cost of deploying ships or increase the storage level amounts of the hydro storage so more hydro can be gained per trade. It needs to be a significant increase. Not too many players out there willing to spend $20.00 dollars to deploy an attack.

I what to make one thing clear you cannot, increase ships limit and leave defense limits as is and vice versa. You have to increase both to keep it balanced.

BFG, if you do nothing the paying hunters will start quitting in the next 12 months because they canít attack anything. If you remove the ships and defenses limits but do not change the deployment cost your hunters will quit very quickly because it will be unreasonably priced to play.

If you make it reasonably priced to play people will spend more. Those that already spend will spend more because they will use it up faster. Those that did not spend as much will spend more because they are getting more for their money. Those that did not spend before may spend some now because they too are getting more for their money.

BFG, the ship/defense limits issue and the cost of playing this version of your wonderful game will thin your paying player base significantly in the next 12 months if you do nothing. It is time to make some changes to Conquest.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 14, 2015, 06:53:28 PM
Wow why is anyone still playing? This uni has been ridiculous since it was 6 months old. Even if BFG can and does change the limits it'll just happen again.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 14, 2015, 07:12:57 PM
In my opinion the ones that are still playing enjoy the large numbers. I know I do. There are still at least 100 serious paying players and about 300 serious not paying players. Granted some spend more than others.

Yes BFG believes there will be issues if they increase the ship and defense limits. They need to to decide do they want to work on those issues as they occur or let the hunters quit slowly. The farmers like me want be effected.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 14, 2015, 07:24:13 PM
But if you can't build anything what's the point?
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Grace on April 14, 2015, 07:24:47 PM
why should they waste their time fixing a broken uni in which anyone with any sense quit within 4 months of its launch?
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 14, 2015, 07:37:12 PM
@censored - that is the point of this thread. It is getting to the point were the hunters can't build anymore.

@Grace - Why do you have to by an ass and insult the remaining players of Conquest. Oh I know why because you are.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 14, 2015, 07:40:46 PM
She's wrong anyway. It was at least 6-8 months before most people started leaving.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 14, 2015, 07:52:03 PM
6-8 months is when most players have quit the previous universes. The only ones that remained are the ones that the universe  fit.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 14, 2015, 07:54:17 PM
Pretty much
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Grace on April 14, 2015, 08:26:07 PM
It doesn't matter. The universe is broken. You are wasting your time both playing it and making a thread about it... even more so putting in any kind of ticket. Move on and join a new uni. BFG have already said they wont fix conquest.

No, she is not wrong. she said ANYONEWITHANYSENSE
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 14, 2015, 09:43:11 PM
You are still a donkey and now you are a female dog. Sorry I should not insult donkeys and female dogs like that.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Grace on April 14, 2015, 10:35:28 PM
My apologies if what I say offends you or comes across in a cynical tone, but you are beating a dead horse. BFG have already said they wont fix conquest so why make a thread asking them the same thing again?
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 14, 2015, 10:58:08 PM
Apology accepted. You basically said everyone that plays Conquest has no since and that was not nice of you. I did not have a problem with your opinion that the thread was a waste of time. It is my time to waste.

BFG has said on several occasions that they can't do something in Conquest. Its not until a thread like this that brings the issue back up and a bunch of complaints about the issue that they fix it. They will either fix it or if they can't then the game will slowly die over the next 12 months.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 14, 2015, 11:17:25 PM
BFG has on numerous occasions reversed decisions. It is folly to assume it will never happen again.
That said, whether or not they do anything will greatly depend on Conquest's profitability and the cost of modifying the the game. Two questions which only BFG has answers to.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Grace on April 15, 2015, 12:30:16 AM
why don't you just join another uni? There are several out there which aren't broken and there is even a new one without any NPCs, just like old times
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on April 15, 2015, 12:35:01 AM
why don't you just join another uni? There are several out there which aren't broken and there is even a new one without any NPCs, just like old times
Why don't you join Conquest?  There is plenty of debris to be collected.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 15, 2015, 12:36:54 AM
I do play the others but I enjoy Conquest more because of the larger fleets and debris fields.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: SithPurge on April 15, 2015, 03:06:50 AM
even if they raise the caps on ship and defenses, in a few months some of us will be meeting that number.. I'm concerned as well. Call me crazy (I'll be first in line. lmao) but I LIKE conquest. My account is pretty much where I've always wanted every account to be. Building a new one would not please me. lol I've thought, since it opened that Conquest has potential to be among the best of the Versions, if it were running properly. the rebuild/recovery rate is awesome.

Just yesterday I was discussing this very topic: when the top 50 people can EACH crash the servers how much longer can we possibly have? That day IS coming.

I would like to think simple impulse control on the part of the players is one possible solution. (*insert cynical laugh here*) ;) But I know better, since I am right there pushing my own limits. It's not human nature.

My personal solution is to cap my own fleet sizes, so I never reach the size where I'm encountering the problems you've (Highlander) been seeing. When I can't hold Mt's anymore, so be it. as you said, building Storage is pretty much pointless, so what's the need for so much res? lol tbh, though, I've already ignored that rule twice in the past few months. It's just too tempting. :P

Finally have an account running at a profit => game crashes and burns. :P  figures. LOL
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Commander KTK on April 15, 2015, 04:30:39 AM
I do play the others but I enjoy Conquest more because of the larger fleets and debris fields.
As do I.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 15, 2015, 09:25:18 AM
why don't you just join another uni? There are several out there which aren't broken and there is even a new one without any NPCs, just like old times

firstly, if everyone simply joined another universe the older ones would die, your free games would loose their cash cow that is conquest, and simply put.....not everyone wants to play, or start playing in other version ffs!

secondly (and the most important) ALL of the unis are broken, it's just that these unis are dying slower.  They have the same issues that exist in conquest, but it's just that you don't see them yet.......BFG also know this which is why the latest unis will, well the chances of them ever facing these issue is remote to impossible.


As for highlander and his OP.......the issue at hand will affect you being a  farmer and that's guaranteed.....eventually, NPCs and territories will need m ore ships to attack them than you are allowed to use by the limit.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 09:45:04 AM
"your free games would loose their cash cow that is conquest"

You have no evidence to support your conclusion. I actually would say that SFCO is the 'cash cow'. It has the most players, and it is as necessary to trade for H as any other npc corrupted uni.

"ALL of the unis are broken,"

That is categorically false. Neither Eradeon nor Eradeon Extreme have the flaws found in other uni's.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 15, 2015, 10:36:52 AM
You have no evidence to support your conclusion. I actually would say that SFCO is the 'cash cow'. It has the most players, and it is as necessary to trade for H as any other npc corrupted uni.

the number of players paying for credits has nothing to do with the amount of credits being purchased.

My evidence is based on fact.  In SFCO 500k credits converted into 784,412,676,917,381,553,485 hydro would be sufficient to fuel a player there for many many months.  In conquest, that amount of hydro would barely be enough to fuel fleets for 5 days.  100 players who spend $20 per week is less than 50 players who spend $50 per week. (PLEASE NOTE...SOME PLAYER SPEND A LOT MORE THAN $50 PER WEEK IN CONQUEST)  Not to mention that in conquest p modes are almost (and should be considered) a basic must/need in the game as the cost to fleetsave is more expensive than p modes.

That is categorically false. Neither Eradeon nor Eradeon Extreme have the flaws found in other uni's.

As i stated, ALL unis have the same flaws built in, you just do not wish to see that.  Just because some will never reach those flaws in your lifetime doesn't mean they don't exist.  Sp to clarify, all of the unis do infact have the same flaws......just they will not come to light for a very very long time
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 10:44:12 AM
"the number of players paying for credits has nothing to do with the amount of credits being purchased."

False.

"My evidence is based on fact."

False.

"In SFCO 500k credits converted into 784,412,676,917,381,553,485 hydro would be sufficient to fuel a player there for many many months. "

Irrelevant. Nobody in SFCO has H storage as high as can be found in Conquest.

"100 players who spend $20 per week is less than 50 players who spend $50 per week."

1000 players spending $20/week > 50 players spending $50/week.
(PLEASE NOTE...SOME PLAYERS SPEND A LOT MORE THAN $20 PER WEEK IN SFCO)

"Not to mention that in conquest p modes are almost (and should be considered) a basic must/need in the game as the cost to fleetsave is more expensive than p modes."

The same is true for every uni that doesn't have Eradeon.

"As i stated, ALL unis have the same flaws built in, you just do not wish to see that"

Lies.

" Just because some will never reach those flaws in your lifetime doesn't mean they don't exist. "

Ridiculous argument. Are you turning into Grace?

"Sp to clarify, all of the unis do infact have the same flaws......just they will not come to light for a very very long time"

Bull.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 15, 2015, 11:19:21 AM
1) where is your evidence that SFCO has 1000 players spending $20 per week?  It it is fact that the top 10 spend between $50 - $100 per week..
- The top 11 - 50 spend between $20 - $50 per week and the top 51 - 100 spend between $5 - $20 per week.

2) It is very relevant......a simple in system harvest in conquest would likely cost an SFCO player around 100 - 200k credits to perform, which means that 5k credits (from conquest) is more than sufficient to fuel any SFCO player for at least 1 week.

3) each universe is derrived and played by its own rules, therefore no other universe matters in comparison to conquest (same as conquest can't be comparable in the same way)

4) p modes are not essential in any other universe, they are preferred....a basic 8 hour fleetsave with a small fleet costs roughly 6 quintillion hydro (and when i say small i mean small for this universe)  The ONLY way to make hydro in conquest is via the merchant, any other universe a hydro profit can be made (and that's fact as i play both SFCO & Uni3)

5) I have to say.....your logical is painfully bad.  Just because you don't see something now, or are not affected by something right now, does not mean that a) you wont be, b) it doesn't exist and c) you wont see it creeping in.....

fact of proof:

In SFCO, EX, EX2, NOVA, UNI2 players have already stated that issues with certain things are slowly creeping in.....the first issue to be faced is NPCs, defences and volumes of numbers.  This becomes an issue as the server gradually slows down to process this occurrences, eventually this leads to white-screens and in the end a simple inability for the server to process (attacks freezing).

Perhaps it is you that is turning into Grace as you are so adamant with your attitude that because it doesn't exist yet it doesn't matter......well, it does matter, because the problem exists and is ever present.... or put it this way......it's like a disease, you may not see the symptoms but that doesn't mean you  don't have it or it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 11:32:46 AM
1: You want to pull numbers out of your ass but complain when I do the same? Lmfao. Prove 50 people pay $50/week in Conquest.

2: Flat out bull. It is in no way relevant.

3: You should have thought of that before YOU started comparing Conquest to other uni's.

4: P modes aren't necessary in ANY uni.

5:Says the guy who doesn't know the meaning of the word logic. If a uni isn't going to max out in 50+ years then your argument is pure conjecture. Unless you have a shiny time machine and can prove that BFG will even exist by then, your argument is null and void.

6: Your opinion is not proof.
SFC was getting white screens when the biggest fleet was 1000 Athena. I get white screens for hits involving less than 1000 ships even today.
So Grace, keep lying and making stuff up.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 15, 2015, 12:47:09 PM
@censored I created this thread to try and effect change in Conquest. You yourself said you do not even play Conquest so why do you care what is being posted on this thread. I see you commenting all over the SFCO forum and you are obviously very opinionated. Would you please hold your opinions to yourself so this thread does not get filled up with stuff no one wants to read or before BFG locks it up.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 12:57:03 PM
@censored I created this thread to try and effect change in Conquest. You yourself said you do not even play Conquest so why do you care what is being posted on this thread. I see you commenting all over the SFCO forum and you are obviously very opinionated. Would you please hold your opinions to yourself so this thread does not get filled up with stuff no one wants to read or before BFG locks it up.

No. I have played Conquest and I'm as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. Posting my opinion is hardly going to get this topic locked. I don't tell you what to do, kindly get off your facist horse and do me the same courtesy.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 15, 2015, 01:21:09 PM
First I did not say you were not entitled to your opinion. I said you were very opinionated. Learn to read.

Second I agree that your opinions alone will not get this thread locked but you arguing with other players could although I do not think it is likely. I am more concerned that people are going to miss something important form someone else because they skip through your opinionated bs.

Third I did not tell you want to do I asked you if you would stop. Your reply answered that question.

Forth I am not sure what a facist horse is (might be misspelled) but since we are name calling I want ask you again to stop posting you opinionated troll.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 01:27:20 PM
"First I did not say you were not entitled to your opinion. I said you were very opinionated. Learn to read."

You said to keep my opinions to myself, which is exactly the same as saying I'm not entitled to an opinion. YOU learn to read. And learn to write while you're at it.

"Second I agree that your opinions alone will not get this thread locked but you arguing with other players could although I do not think it is likely. I am more concerned that people are going to miss something important form someone else because they skip through your opinionated bs. "

Oh yeah because kru's ACTUAL bs is less damaging than my focus on reality. Go screw yourself.

"Third I did not tell you want to do I asked you if you would stop. Your reply answered that question."

Asking, telling, same difference. Either way you're only going to make me comment MORE. I don't tolerate stupidity or facism or hypocrisy or bullies.

"Forth I am not sure what a facist horse is (might be misspelled) but since we are name calling I want ask you again to stop posting you opinionated troll."

Shut up, you facist hypocrite troll scum.

*corrected all fascist to facist since that pulls out the spelling nazi in you*
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 15, 2015, 01:49:14 PM

my opinions are about conquest,  not any other universe.  My opinions on conquest are based on fact, yours are not.

Having previously played a universe and playing a universe are 2 entirely different entities!.

Your opinion on how a universe plays out know is invalid, your opinion is based on previous experience and therefore you cannot contribute to issues which do impact and will impact on a universe as you do not experience these issues on a daily basis.

In reality, anything i have to contribute about a universe i play on a daily basis is not BS and is much more valid than you and grace attempting to troll an opinion as fact!

I myself am still waiting for proof of 1000 players paying $20 per week in SFCO.....i do not need proof of the top 50 spending per week as that's already been established as a given FACT in previous threads.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 15, 2015, 01:56:25 PM
I would like to apologize to Grace. It is obvious the censored is the real troll on the SFCO boards (11 post on this thread alone). Although I use to think he did it civil he is obviously shown me a different side. This will be my last post on any comments he has. I am done feeding his ego.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 01:56:52 PM
"my opinions are about conquest,  not any other universe.  My opinions on conquest are based on fact, yours are not."

Multiple lies in one paragraph. Progress?

"Having previously played a universe and playing a universe are 2 entirely different entities!."

No.

"Your opinion on how a universe plays out know is invalid, "

Your opinion on how a universe plays out is invalid.

"your opinion is based on previous experience and therefore you cannot contribute to issues which do impact and will impact on a universe as you do not experience these issues on a daily basis."

Since your reading comprehension is as bad as highlanders, I'll just laugh at you here for insinuating I was against the suggestion originally made despite the fact I never disagreed with it once.

"In reality, anything i have to contribute about a universe i play on a daily basis is not BS and is much more valid than you and grace attempting to troll an opinion as fact!"

Keep lying. You might convince yourself, and maybe even highlander; but that's probably it.

"I myself am still waiting for proof of 1000 players paying $20 per week in SFCO.....i do not need proof of the top 50 spending per week as that's already been established as a given FACT in previous threads."

No it has NOT been established as fact, EVER. So YOU get to prove your claims first.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 01:57:49 PM
I would like to apologize to Grace. It is obvious the censored is the real troll on the SFCO boards. Although I use to think he did it civil he is obviously shown me a different side. This will be my last post on any comments he has. I am done feeding his ego.

You started the name calling troll scum. So you can dish it out but you can't take it. Got ya.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 15, 2015, 02:41:21 PM
This is hard. I did no t think it would be this hard letting him have the last word. Self control please don't fail me.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 15, 2015, 02:54:44 PM
This is hard. I did no t think it would be this hard letting him have the last word. Self control please don't fail me.

just click on his profile and select block....

these 2 must be the same person in all fairness and grace obviously forgot what account she is on lol


In either case.....someone that hasn't played in a universe for a long time and no longer players and has no intention of returning any opinion on the state of that universe he/she/it might have is 100% invalid.....however, he/she/it doesn't seem to comprehend that..

Moreover, he/she/it seems to h ave the same identical aggressive tone as grace when she/it is outright wrong and gets called....oh well! whatever floats their goats i suppose
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 03:03:33 PM
I played Conquest more than long enough to have a valid opinion. You have yet to make a single valid argument. Please do block me Grace #2. It'll mean I don't have to waste as much time schooling you.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Grace on April 15, 2015, 03:25:10 PM
excuse me! please don't drag me into your childish argument.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 15, 2015, 03:28:22 PM
excuse me! please don't drag me into your childish argument.

Says the person who's goal in life is to start childish arguments.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: SithPurge on April 16, 2015, 03:51:32 AM
The topic was that-a-way.  => but the conversation  has gone  this way.. \/   lol   ;)

Fleet caps, freezing attacks, game issues.. am I ringing any bells yet?  hehehe
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 16, 2015, 04:32:43 AM
I was reading through some older topics and saw that Matt already told kru & highlander that it wasn't possible to expand the numbers in the game. lol. So much for that.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: SithPurge on April 16, 2015, 04:57:30 AM
Even if they could, as I said in my first comment, people would just meet that number in a few months and the problem would repeat.

I think better would be to LOWER our Fleet/Defense caps to where they don't cause issues with the servers. of course that has problems of it's own.. people would want compensation for lost numbers (rightfully, imo)

I'm not huge on computer knowledge, but I assume they would need to get new/bigger servers in order to add to the numbers, and it's probably not a financially viable option.. I have no clue what these things cost, so I'm guessing, But if it was a worthy investment that would pay off, you'd think it would happen.. lol It hasn't so far, so I'm guessing again, but I doubt it's going to. :P


I would suggest a tech that controls each players max fleet size, but any such ideas would only be worked into a new version, which I'm just NOT into.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 16, 2015, 05:25:49 AM
From what I've read, the game was already changed multiple times to get this far. Some of those changes were patchwork, like changing the way the server batches builds. I think if people want the game fixed at this point they'll have to give BFG millions of dollars to work over the problems.

It's funny, highlander said he was going to quit spending $ back in November; yet here he is. lmfao.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: SithPurge on April 16, 2015, 07:54:36 AM
considering how much business he gets I'd be surprised if he really needs to spend any money. idk the exact profit margin, but I'd bet a good half the paying players are buying Hydro through him. If I'm doing that many shipments it's not for no benefit. lol

Issues are finding the way down the ranks to me now.. My Mt probe-hold is 9 hours in and has been holding off two entire Wormhole fleets for most of that. I praise the bravery of the pilot facing nearly 2 Quintillion to one odds, but it's kinda clogging up my fleet screen now.  :P SO glad I didn't send a true hold fleet :P
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 16, 2015, 09:40:48 AM
ok censored, enough of the selctive posting bullshit please.

Matt and BFG had previously stated many things in the past. Your argument about not being able to raise the limits in terms of ship numbers and defence numbers is utter SHITE!

let me show you.....

#1 overall points 13,663,675,894,737,556,996,096 that equals 22 digits....

max fleet/defence unit per planet 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 that equals 19 digits.

so, as i have stated many posts ago, your opinion on the matter is invalid as you do not have any of the  fact or any of the current information.

BFG increased the integer limit on the leaderboards for both individuals and alliance.  If that limit could be raised TWICE then so can the limit on fleet/defences per planet etc etc

oh, and by the way.....one of the broken issues that exists in EVERY universe you will will probably NEVER get to see is the leaderboard integer limit....which WE, from CONQUEST had changed/raised across every universe........you're welcome for that
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Matt H on April 16, 2015, 11:17:02 AM
Even if BFG can

We really can't. We invented new horrible ways to save numbers in our database last time and told everyone that we couldn't go higher. Since we have 1 developer now, I wouldn't count on us creating more problems for ourselves by allowing Conquest to crash on an hourly basis because of super high numbers.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 16, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
We really can't. We invented new horrible ways to save numbers in our database last time and told everyone that we couldn't go higher. Since we have 1 developer now, I wouldn't count on us creating more problems for ourselves by allowing Conquest to crash on an hourly basis because of super high numbers.

thanks for the explanation and reasoning as to why you can't Matt, obviously you guys at BFG must now understand you have created (perhaps inadvertently) an end game for conquest which will obviously have a huge knock on effect in regards to income you receive from this game.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Pantin on April 16, 2015, 01:00:04 PM
secondly (and the most important) ALL of the unis are broken, it's just that these unis are dying slower.  They have the same issues that exist in conquest, but it's just that you don't see them yet.......BFG also know this which is why the latest unis will, well the chances of them ever facing these issue is remote to impossible.
That is categorically false. Neither Eradeon nor Eradeon Extreme have the flaws found in other uni's.
What he said.

fact of proof:

In SFCO, EX, EX2, NOVA, UNI2 players have already stated that issues with certain things are slowly creeping in.....the first issue to be faced is NPCs, defences and volumes of numbers.  This becomes an issue as the server gradually slows down to process this occurrences, eventually this leads to white-screens and in the end a simple inability for the server to process (attacks freezing).
my opinions are about conquest,  not any other universe.  My opinions on conquest are based on fact, yours are not.
???
I'm pretty sure you quoting other unis left and right makes your opinions about ALL the unis not just Conquest.

This said I can at least speak for Nova and say your statement is complete BS.

As i stated, ALL unis have the same flaws built in, you just do not wish to see that.  Just because some will never reach those flaws in your lifetime doesn't mean they don't exist.  Sp to clarify, all of the unis do infact have the same flaws......just they will not come to light for a very very long time
LOL. Because, yes, having two growth curves, oen that hits a programming wall every few months that makes BFG prematurely bald, and another one that will be problematic in my child's lifetime, these two things are exactly the same thing.

thanks for the explanation and reasoning as to why you can't Matt, obviously you guys at BFG must now understand you have created (perhaps inadvertently) an end game for conquest which will obviously have a huge knock on effect in regards to income you receive from this game.

LOL. This was obvious months into the uni. If not weeks. But then again feel free to call me a troll for stating what I've stated months ago. And to be clear I ain't pretending to be some super bright poster, BFG ans many players also knew this / figured it out, you just never have. Not trying to bitch BFG, they should be congratulated at least for trying to patch it for as long as they did.

oh, and by the way.....one of the broken issues that exists in EVERY universe you will will probably NEVER get to see is the leaderboard integer limit....which WE, from CONQUEST had changed/raised across every universe........you're welcome for that

First of all, I'll thank BFG for that fix, not you. Sorry. Second, Conquest also brought the 75% cap to all time reductions for every uni so no I won't thank Conquest for existing.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 16, 2015, 01:07:15 PM
and why did we get a 75% cap you troll?!?!?

yes, because at 100% bonus across the boards the game bugged out and stopped working properly.  In fact, it was proven that instead of building the correct number of ships it was removing that number of ships/defences/droids instead

That was an issue which again, had been present since the first day of the first universe, but is a perfect example of how conquest found yet another glitch in the system which could have and would have effected all unis..

Please do not troll something unless you are prepared to give reasons for why a cap was introduced....

And funny how you mention NOVA....it was morons like you in both NOVA and UNI2 who kept on crying about how unfair and unbalanced NPCs were, which of course, forced BFG to change the base code which now effects EVERYONE in EVERY universe...

All said and done you stupid TROLL! every change implemented because of complaints based on conquest was for the betterment of the games (as well as prolonging the life of universe), every change made through the complaints of idiots from NOVA and UNI2 actually made the game worse...

but hey ho!
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Pantin on April 16, 2015, 01:34:01 PM
and why did we get a 75% cap you troll?!?!?

yes, because at 100% bonus across the boards the game bugged out and stopped working properly. 

That was an issue which again, had been present since the first day of the first universe, but is a perfect example of how conquest found yet another glitch in the system which could have and would have effected all unis..

Please do not troll something unless you are prepared to give reasons for why a cap was introduced....

And funny how you mention NOVA....it was morons like you in both NOVA and UNI2 who kept on crying about how unfair and unbalanced NPCs were, which of course, forced BFG to change the base code which now effects EVERYONE in EVERY universe...

All said and done you stupid TROLL! every change implemented because of complaints based on conquest was for the betterment of the games (as well as prolonging the life of universe), every change made through the complaints of idiots from NOVA and UNI2 actually made the game worse...

but hey ho!

For a guy who sees trolls left and right you are quick to insult everyone with a different opinion than yours. For the 75% bonus cap I'll stat that for Nova the highest one can get is 81% faster research. I won't mention other unis as I don't have access to the highest players' personal infos at the other unis but at least for Npva I don't think BFG would have put a 75% cap in Nova for that % reduction difference. Yes, EVENTUALLY, we would reach 1005 there but since it's goign to take years instead of a handful of months in Conquest, The cap would probably have been set much higher than 75% seeing the process would ahve been painstakingly slow instead fo blazingly fast. Again, this if for Nova, granted faster unis would have reached that ceiling faster but again not BLAZINGLY fast like Conquest.

And funny how you mention NOVA....it was morons like you in both NOVA and UNI2 who kept on crying about how unfair and unbalanced NPCs were, which of course, forced BFG to change the base code which now effects EVERYONE in EVERY universe...

The original incremental NPCs in Nova, the first introduced, were so broken that people in the higher bracket were doubling their fleet every DAY. Please explain to me how that rampant inflation was something good for the game. It was worse than Conquest which is something rather impressive.

Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: kru on April 16, 2015, 01:46:07 PM
the max cap on any research or ship/defence building was always 100%.  It's just that nobody ever took it that far to begin with as rescources were harder to come-by.

Imagine, a build droid with 2% bonus, you'd need a level a lot of levels of shipyards to make that 100%

(1 droid per 3 levels - 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 etc etc) Now, just imagine the hydro cost laddy..a level 55 costs 1.8 quintillion, so i doubt anyone went that high prior to NPCs, or certainly within 12 - 18 months of their release.

Even with a basic android, you get 4%, and human workers get 4% still a lot of building and hydro cost.

After the 75% cap you can attain an 81% cap by using amps/commanders.  You are correct though, that because of the exponential growth of conquest, these 'bugs' or 'broken aspects of the game' as you call them were found and discovered.

The 100% cap would again have effected every player in every universe, so i'd say that was a GOOD move by BFG to implement the cap.

Again, the real truth to the crying of NPCs was because the SMALL players like you couldn't and wouldn't take advantage of the top tier NPCs.....Funny how in every other universe smaller players were taking advantage.

Of course though, as you fail to see and accept, due to the players of NOVA and UNI2 not thinking things through, you made the games worse for a whole lot more people than you made it better for
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Pantin on April 16, 2015, 01:53:13 PM
Again, the real truth to the crying of NPCs was because the SMALL players like you couldn't and wouldn't take advantage of the top tier NPCs.....Funny how in every other universe smaller players were taking advantage.

Sigh. Your whole argument is based on an assumption that I was a small player. You don't even define what you think of as small and you don't know what my rank was. But other than that it's a great argument.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 16, 2015, 02:01:44 PM
For those out there that care. I have been told by BFG on several occasions that the reason they do not want to raise the ships/defenses limits is because they believe (and are probably right) that the game will start crashing/freezing up even more.

They either can't or do not want to spend the time necessary to fix the issues as they occur. The fact they only have 1 developer for (i do not know the exact number) 7 universes tells me they do not have the man power to fix issues as they occur.

That being said the hunters of Conquest you have a few options once you reach the ship limits.

First is to quit. This will probably happen the most.

Second is to build a limit of Hades and smash all those Athena fleets. Why bother doing this when BFG does not want to commit to fixing the issue with our game.

Third is to stop spending money become a farmer and stick around long enough to see if BFG fixes our game or lets it die a slow death. I am starting to think that this is what is going to happen.

Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Pantin on April 16, 2015, 02:08:43 PM
for (i do not know the exact number) 7 universes

IIRC, 10 SFC unis plus SDE, SDEN and the new game I forgot the name.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 16, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
Censored I am still around because BFG fixed my issue that they told me for over a month that they could not fix. Once they fixed it I have not had anymore problems.

They always say that they can not fix a Conquest issue. Its not until the paying players start quitting that they address the issue. I know of 3 paying players that have quit because of this issue in the past 2 months. I have had 2 others tell me they are going to quit soon if BFG does not fix this. I know this because they bought hydro from me.

I do not want this game to die of a slow death. I enjoy it too much and do not want to have to find another to play. I will be here until they pull the plug or I die from a heat attack from sitting on my ass all day.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 16, 2015, 03:11:07 PM
BFG Business model - create multiple similar games that are self sufficient and cheap to play. Deploy a new game every 5-6 months to get new players and get returning players that did not like older version.

This is actually a sound Business model.

One problem.

Conquest is not self sufficient or cheap to play.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Pantin on April 16, 2015, 03:15:35 PM
Highlander... it does happen that companies, with many more employees than BFG, fail with one product even though most of their others are okay.

MTG the gard game once in a while always seems to print a totally broken card that went through the whole pre-production round of testing, and that they have to restrict or ban because it's totally broken. And they mave a LOT more testers than BFG does.

I'm not disagreeing with your statement, just offering a different perspective.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: The Real Highlander on April 16, 2015, 03:31:37 PM
Thanks, I already knew that. It just sucks that I like the one that is broken. I am just venting my frustrations.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: censored on April 19, 2015, 06:29:30 PM
ok censored, enough of the selctive posting bullshit please.

Matt and BFG had previously stated many things in the past. Your argument about not being able to raise the limits in terms of ship numbers and defence numbers is utter SHITE!

Obviously not. Obviously you are the one full of "SHITE!", as you say.

let me show you.....

#1 overall points 13,663,675,894,737,556,996,096 that equals 22 digits....

max fleet/defence unit per planet 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 that equals 19 digits.

so, as i have stated many posts ago, your opinion on the matter is invalid as you do not have any of the  fact or any of the current information.

Your comments do not invalidate my position. Sorry. Try again.

BFG increased the integer limit on the leaderboards for both individuals and alliance.  If that limit could be raised TWICE then so can the limit on fleet/defences per planet etc etc

I defer to Matt on this.

oh, and by the way.....one of the broken issues that exists in EVERY universe you will will probably NEVER get to see is the leaderboard integer limit....which WE, from CONQUEST had changed/raised across every universe........you're welcome for that

It isn't broken if it will never happen. And I really don't care if Conquest had that effect, since the only other uni likely to experience the need for it in the next 10 years is HG.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Fate on April 21, 2015, 04:08:41 AM
23,345,095,328,906,967,252,992 points for highlander

160,000,000,000,000,000 is the amount of bytes Google processes a day

Math numbers make my brain hurt lol
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Deadeye on May 19, 2015, 08:00:34 PM
why dont they just start a new conquest and drop the numbers down on everything. other then cost to build ships. But keep the hydro numbers to send ships low. That way we dont run into this problem for a long time again
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on August 28, 2015, 07:48:10 PM
Suspension day in conquest.

42 suspended out of 479 players.

5 of the top ten including the OP of this thread.
13 of the top 100.
24 of the bottom 100.

Haha.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: haggi on August 28, 2015, 08:00:46 PM
well that saved me from using p markers till monday.
and i will just transfer my hydro credits then lol.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Zax on August 28, 2015, 09:14:42 PM
Who is Grace? and why are people who have clearly not played this version for some time even commenting!
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Wargasm on August 28, 2015, 09:26:19 PM
Because we can, and because we know it makes you angry.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Zax on August 28, 2015, 09:52:09 PM
Wargasm wow! Its been a while I think I remember you. Did I not take you fleet 3 times back in X2 lmao...
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Sirkpay on September 23, 2015, 01:40:21 PM
How are you guys doing? so who"s the new game emperor?
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: davec415 on September 04, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
what is the maz # of missiles can u have on a single planet.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on September 04, 2017, 02:44:53 PM
9.223 quintillion
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: davec415 on September 04, 2017, 03:31:03 PM
how many zeros is that????
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on September 04, 2017, 07:17:50 PM
18
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Admiral T-Wayne on October 30, 2017, 04:38:45 PM
9.223+ quintillion is the most you can HAVE, but you can BUILD a virtually unlimited number of missiles, or ships, and get credit (RSPs and numbers) for the build.

The game won't let you build more than 9.223+ quint at a shot, but you can keep building in these batches as long as your res holds out.  We have guys in old slow SFCO who have sextillions of defenses to their credit, due to continual construction of phantom defenses.

I've filed a defect report on this, but BFG has not addressed the issue.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on November 05, 2017, 05:42:25 AM
That's not a bug.  It's resources spent points.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Admiral T-Wayne on November 21, 2017, 07:17:32 AM
I can understand the position that getting credits for the resources spent on building the phantom defenses is a feature.  But wouldn't you agree that getting defense point credits for the phantom defenses is a defect?
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on November 21, 2017, 08:20:13 AM
Defense points for phantom, yes.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Admiral T-Wayne on December 24, 2017, 07:43:41 AM
How many players (of more than a few hundred RSPs) are there in Conquest?  One of your most recently active threads (this one) has 2 years worth of conversation on 1 page, so I'm thinking that there must not be a whole lot going on anymore?

Did anyone in Conquest ever max out all ship types on all 18 planets/moons (and Heph, of course)

Similar question for defenses, limited to planets

And, what has been the largest hydro storage unit created in Conquest?

You fellows have had the speed advantage on us slow SFCO players, but I sense that we are starting to stretch the limits of game scale, similar to what you might have achieved a while back.

I currently have the largest hydro storage unit in SFCO, at Level 76, working toward my '77.  Two other players are working on their 76's.  I'm interested in seeing how these compare to what you have been able to achieve in Conquest.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on December 24, 2017, 10:50:08 PM
One nameless player who went (i) temporarily had a hydro storage of 84.


* ore: 1,154,605,723,269,906,885,677,070,154,003
* crystal: 529,206,189,960,436,488,281,258,782,248

On one planet.  And maxed out ships for all but gaia, thanatos, zeus, but only 1 ares, slightly less than max for hades on a different moon.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Admiral T-Wayne on December 25, 2017, 05:45:39 PM
Hydro storage units require equal ore and crys, so are your numbers for a hydro storage, or for some other unit?

I calc that it will take me about 10 months to get an HS 78, once I finish the HS 77.  There appears to be code in SFCO that says "Screw the No. 1 player".  This code stops scaling the NPCs that spawn from that player (me).  I've seen essentially zero growth in my spawns during the past year.  As a result, it takes 2x as many NPC hits to collect the res for the next Hydro Storage upgrade.  What is 5 months for the HS 77 upgrade becomes 10 months for the HS 78.

Hilariously, the NPC spawns from most of the Top 10 players in SFCO now are as large as, or larger, than mine, even though I might have 10x+ a spawner's RSPs.
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: commander abаб on December 25, 2017, 07:28:03 PM
Hydro storage:

BUILDINGS:
* Shipyard: 26
* Capitol: 54
* Research Lab: 63
* Missile Silo: 0
* Factory: 3
* Ore Warehouse: 77
* Crystal Warehouse: 0
* Hydrogen Storage: 84
* Foundry: 63
* Resource Den: 0
Title: Re: The State of Conquest
Post by: Admiral T-Wayne on December 27, 2017, 09:44:14 AM
That is a truly amazing accomplishment.  It would be interesting to know how long it took to collect the resources for that fellow.