January 27, 2021, 10:22:58 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - wishmaster3

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
Universe 2 / Re: Uni2 is now a safe place.
« on: March 15, 2012, 03:25:28 PM »
Aachen has completed the SFC quest already. lol

Instead of newbie bashing he always hunted (and haunted) the big ones using deep skills and tactics. The game now loses a great player, one of the bests. However I'm not sad for it. I've already quit several months ago so I know it's going to be good for Aachen's RL.

Battle Reports / Re: BARON VON GOOMEISTER[POH] #1 Has been Exiled
« on: February 24, 2012, 03:56:48 PM »
That's the real deal: to hit few real big boys instead of hunting small fleets 24/7.
Nice work! I'm proud... but I'm not playing again, don't ask. :P lol


Off-Topic / Re: Don't Panic Z
« on: September 07, 2011, 12:17:54 AM »
A really scary player. A big loss...  :(

General Starfleet Discussion / Re: Terms of Viewing Galaxy Page
« on: August 18, 2011, 08:34:11 PM »
"Terms of Use" aka BFG hidden rules that no one knows but them...

General Starfleet Discussion / Re: This new adventure coming soon.
« on: August 14, 2011, 03:11:46 PM »
I kinda agree with Denise. It lead me to decide do quit. But I can't do it immediately for many reasons...

I think the "new" game is great for BFG because it may be new for many people that haven't played SFC. Regular people like fancy things. I think BFG will get a lot of new users with facebook and syfy just like SFCO in the beginning. Seems like a good business move in short term. But in long term the regular people that like fancy things will leave just like in SFCO, because the game mechanics is not for regular people (the same people who love Farmville, Cityville).

It's good for BFG. However it's a punch in the face for us, the old SFC players because we are already tired and bored mostly and there's nothing actually new for us. Sad but true, guys. Money is the law and BFG is no charity institution.

Anything further than new images, css and tutorial?

General Starfleet Discussion / Re: Using war for moonshots
« on: August 10, 2011, 03:43:31 PM »
Quote from: "Matt H"
While I don't know that this specific problem is going to be addressed, war changes are coming soon. I think you will be pleased.

I've just seen some changes.


It's nice. Well done. But I don't see how it affects the issue pointed on this topic.

General Starfleet Discussion / Re: This new adventure coming soon.
« on: August 10, 2011, 03:28:16 PM »
I'm curious to know if it will be "Mafia Boss II" or it will have any further differences from SFC than the pictures.

General Starfleet Discussion / Using war for moonshots
« on: August 09, 2011, 07:22:36 PM »
Is it valid, legal? I know at least a big alliance that does that in SFCO and another that is planning to do that.

I think it's system abuse. I see no reason to do that further than abusing the system to gain DSP rank. But there's no rule about this, so I can't report anyone. What do you think?

BFG could make its own database in the game and make it cost credits to search.

Yeah! Coding war! Come on! I'm ready!!  :lol:  :lol:

Leaving for this is just an excuse they make to themselves. When we are addicted, we have to do that, otherwise we don't leave, even knowing it's for the best. Let them go...

If DSP get's removed, I will go.

Quote from: "Bravicus"
Okay so currently there are 3 ways that players can pay for resources:

Geo, Android/Facebook Ads (though FB ads have been nerfed slightly), and what has become affectionately termed "I-Hopping"

Geo gives you a flat 10% boost over what you would make otherwise.  Costs 100k credits or around 10-12 dollars for three months so 40-48 dollars a year

Androids/Humans can give you a much bigger boost than that, in O I have about a 20% boost from humans in X2 there are probably people with 26% boosts.  Using fb ads to do this used to cost no more than 50 dollars.  Buying droids to get there would cost somewhere between $500 and $700 (I am assuming the androids were purchased at bargain rate 2.5 credits per $2)

"I-Hopping" doesn't increase your resources by a percentage.  Instead for 25$ per move you are able to get a clear cut advantage in reaching inactives.  Ken has demonstrated how effective this can be clearing out more 60 million (I am not sure of the exact amount) in a day using it.  He spent 750,000 credits is one day Assuming he bought them at the value rate of 2.5 credits per $2 he spent 60 dollars.

Now lets look at the difference between these types of transactions.

1)  Geologist is intended to be the purchase of RSP, as are Androids.  "I-Hopping" was not the purpose of making planets moveable.

2)  Geologist is very economical compared to Androids and "I-Hopping".  You can get a geo just by doing the free offers for credits.  Human workers were fairly economical but Androids and "I-Hopping" are just not affordable options to the majority of players.

3)  Geologist and Android don't add res, they increase your flow of res.  "I-Hopping" increases your resource stockpile.  There is an important difference between stock and flow.

4)  Geologist and Androids do not deny anyone else resources; "I-Hopping does".  The first waves on inactives are much more profitable than the farming that will happen until its deletion.

What I see as the imbalancing effects of "I-Hopping" is the combination of 2 and 4.  It has a steep barrier of entry and it denies resources to other players.  If the credits required to planet just were only 5k then there would be more competition to balance it.  But at 20-25 dollars per move very few players will do this giving them a much much bigger economy than other players.  Since it was this was probably not BFG's purpose in allowing attack of inactives after a planetary move, I think BFG should disallow these attacks.

1) Impertinent. The purpose doesn't matter, what it does is what matter. The purpose of harvesting is harvesting, but we use it to fleetsave.
2) If some people want to spend MUCH money for few resources, does it unbalance the game?
3) Disagree. Inactive raiding is also flow of res. It doesn't matter it is not continuous, it's still a in flow. If you stock it or not, it's up to you.
4) It may be a point. But directly affected by how often it will be done globally.

I'll stop being lazy and make my point. What I see is: the resources by credit of the "I-Hopping" is ridiculously low compared to geologist, for instance (one counter-example is enough). I'll show the calc both (I've done it on the topic very start on my head). The assumptions for SFCO scale.

One BIG inactive: 100,000,000 raw res profit
One planet move: 250,000 credits
0,0025 credit per raw resource

One top player: 8,000,000 base daily production
One week geologist: 10,000 credits
Bonus: 800,000 per day
Total bonus: 5,600,000 raw res
0,0018 credit per raw resource

So using geologist is ~38% cheaper than I-Hopping.

Obs.: I tried to use the worst case on the assumptions (a upper bound inactive, a lower bound production for top players). Three weeks geologist and larger production universes would make the geologist even better.

Furthermore, if you put the time and luck into the numbers, the geologist gets again better. Inactive hunting takes RL time and you have to put the frequency they show up into count too. How often a 100,000,000 profit inactive will show up in SFCO? There's a probability factor, and it's always smaller than 1. The geologist you put it there and you are 100% sure (1 factor) it will work 24/7.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26