contact
July 17, 2019, 02:45:39 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 - jimbojones

Pages: 1 2 [3]
31
Feature Suggestions / Fleetsave Commander
« on: December 22, 2009, 08:33:18 PM »
I know this a contentious issue that has been discussed at length but I really think it's worth discussing again because I know a lot of people are getting a little bored with the repetitive nature of the game. I've had a few friends quit the game recently so I think it's a serious point for everyone involved.

First of all let me say I really enjoy the game and it's the only descent one on facebook.....However the issue of fleetsaving is really starting to become an bore.

What is the object of the game and what makes you successful? To build a bigger fleet and hope to occasionally catch someone who has overslept or can't get to a computer thereby destroying their fleet.
To be successful the single most important thing is to constantly be around a computer and fleetsave your ships and resources, attacking isn't even that much of a necessity really as you can just sit back and let your mines do the work and fleetsave at the end of the day.

The problem with this model is that A) it's totally unrealistic - if you left your planet undefended then it would either be partially/totally destroyed or enslaved and B) It makes it a game populated by insomniac bores who have nothing else to do with their time beyond fleetsaving and probing. Mind numbing persistence and the ability to repeatedly complete monotonous tasks are more important traits than ingenuity or tactical intelligence.

What is fleetsaving anyway? Surely it can only be classed as a retreat. So are our entire planetary population on the ships? Are we all nomadic peoples that return to a planet once or twice daily?

If a real world nation was about to suffer an impending attack would the armed forces take the gold reserve and bugger off leaving the population to rot? I think not!

This is supposedly a battle game yet 95% of battles that occur are between an active fleet upon a 'sleeping' one.

Surely there needs to be a consequence for this fleetsaving/resourcesaving retreat?

One possibility would be that if you're attacked and your fleet is elsewhere then some of your mines are destroyed. It would stand to reason that an attacker would rain down upon the planet that had such cowardly commanders. This way it would encourage more front ups, more battles and more fun! You could adapt the decoy and use them to cover one of your mines (if it was only one then it would be fairer on the poorer players). It would also make building defences an integral part of the game. At the moment they're next to pointless if you're a fastidious fleetsaver.

Another possibility (and this would be my choice) would be that if an attacking fleet comes upon an unguarded, or lightly guarded, planet then they can become overlord of that planet with a proportion of their attacking fleet remaining in orbit to force the owner to pay a levy each day that would supersede diplomacy mode (the same amounts as dip mode of total resources). The occupied player would still have full control of their planet but would now have a new aim, to regain freedom. If the occupied planet grew stronger then they could overthrow the occupying force and regain their independence once more.

Whilst this sounds like it would only suit the higher ranked players, in actuality it would even fleets out because in order to maintain their empire they would need to have a proportion of their fleet elsewhere guarding their serf planets. This would encourage the top players to battle each other because the potential revenue stream would be much much higher from an  top player paying tribute. It would also be far more realistic, to be a top player you'd need to juggle a hell of a lot of balls, running an empire is far harder than a single planet! It would also create far more battles between empires that wanted control of the choice planets, all the while the invaded planet is safe bar the daily levy.

For the player invaded it would also be an interesting challenge, they would have full freedom to attack other planets and build but would have to pay a proportion of their resources to the occupying force. If anyone ever attacked them it would be the overlords fleet who would face them as opposed to the planet's because the overlord would frame himself as 'the protector' and he wouldn't want to give up a valuable part of his empire.

Another interesting advantage of it would be the ability for 3rd parties to either attack and take over the overlords position or to liberate the planet (this is where alliances and buddies would come into play).

In order to avoid third parties profiteering from salvage you'd make it impossible to salvage the destroyed overlords fleet, this way the third party attacker would have two simple choices, either take over as new overlord or liberate the planet.

I think this would be fairly easy to implement but would add a whole new dimension to the game.

Let me know what you think?

32
Trading Post / 200k Hydro For Sale
« on: November 25, 2009, 07:41:23 PM »
I have 200 thousand hydro that I'd like to trade for crystal at a rate of 1:1.5

Message me if you're interested

Cheers

33
Feature Suggestions / Re: Ratings
« on: November 17, 2009, 05:43:36 AM »
Quote from: "azrunnerjt"
Quote from: "jimbojones"
Then someone needs to edit the wiki because it says "spent for all construction". Obviously researching something isn't construction.

Why don't you?

I know this page has always been correct: http://bluefroggaming.com/starfleet_com ... tle=Points

Well that makes a lot more sense, why was it ever overwritten! It would seem I don't know enough about it to do a write up justice.

Overall thought I do still think the emphasis of the game and scoring is slightly off. There have been a few suggestions regarding occupation etc that could be really interesting. I'd love to see proper in depth mission ala Escape Velocity but then I suppose you take it or leave it.

34
Feature Suggestions / Re: Ratings
« on: November 17, 2009, 04:42:19 AM »
Quote from: "azrunnerjt"
Quote from: "jimbojones"
Quote from: "Nobunaga"
I thought resources spent on research didn't go towards the 'Resources Spent Points' category but just to building of and ships? If I'm wrong then I apologise.

No need to apologize. Building, ships, defenses, and research all count toward resources spent.


Then someone needs to edit the wiki because it says "spent for all construction". Obviously researching something isn't construction.

35
Feature Suggestions / Re: Ratings
« on: November 17, 2009, 04:38:58 AM »
Quote from: "Nobunaga"
Dannerman, although yes you would only get the point for the research, you would get a crap load for the resources spent on that research of warp 20 when it was complete.

I thought resources spent on research didn't go towards the 'Resources Spent Points' category but just to building of and ships? If I'm wrong then I apologise.

36
Feature Suggestions / Re: Ratings
« on: November 17, 2009, 04:32:07 AM »
Yes the argument does hold steady for the top players of the game but for anyone outside of the top 10 and top 100 this isn't the case because of ships.

The argument that Resources Spent isn't by a distance the most important factor due to building of mines etc becoming prohibitively expensive doesn't hold any water because the cost of building ships is a massive part of that ranking. Ships will always cost the same amount no matter how much you spend. This creates a huge divide between those who got to the top early and those who are just joining the game (I don't know if I would recommend any friends bother now). Is there in fact ANY chance of anyone joining right now ever getting into the top 100 let alone the top 10? I don't believe so.

I agree that research, I believe at least, should be the main benchmark against which a culture should be judged is a paltry amount that barely effects the rankings in any way. These are also some of the most expensive aspects of the game yet they're barely rewarded in any way whatsoever (one piddly point per advancement! You get the same for making a missile battery).
As the game is structured at the moment really you should only bother getting to a certain point of development, say enough to build Hades and then stop altogether and focus on building ships. Therefore we have to wonder what the main objective of the game (for 95% of the players) is and it appears that it's to reach maximum capital expenditure as opposed to developing an advanced scientific culture or attacking. Why do we attack? To gain more resources to spend on more ships. So this is basically just a game of capitalism, in fact you could just rename objects, change the graphics and call it Wallstreet.

In my instance I spend frugally, balance my spends between all of the factors yet my research and ships destroyed stats are well over double the ranking position of my resources spent ranking. I see players who have done nothing but build mines and low rating ships, never launching attacks and never researching anything yet their overall score is double mine because I'm careful with my resources.

I do believe that the balance between the different methods of working out leadership is wrong and it should be changed. Sure it would put a couple of noses out of joint but it would make the game more entertaining and encourage different strategies for expansion as opposed to just building more and more ships and mines.

37
Feature Suggestions / Ratings
« on: November 10, 2009, 06:00:32 PM »
Would it be possible to do away with anything other than Resources Spent when working out the rankings because lets be honest that's the only factor that makes much of a difference currently, it's misleading to imply otherwise.

If not then would it be possible to actually make each field even in worth? After all this is an attack based game, at the moment the rankings reward people who just build and build (might as well be playing farmville!).

38
General Starfleet Discussion / Re: Harvester Post Attack
« on: November 10, 2009, 05:58:13 PM »
Quote from: "Ferip"
haha man you guys really need to read the wiki lol  .. speaking of harvesting.. 350,000 ore and 230,000 debris cloud was found!! paul.. are you to blame?

Well aren;t you clever, where in the wiki does it say that?!

I looked for an answer repeatedly.

39
General Starfleet Discussion / Re: Harvester Post Attack
« on: November 10, 2009, 07:27:57 AM »
Quote from: "LunarAvenger"
go into fleets, select a target coordinate, then select the harvesters you want to send. The rest is just some basic syncing skillz  :ugeek:

Brilliant, thanks for that, I've always launched from the galaxy page so that's really helpful!

40
General Starfleet Discussion / Harvester Post Attack
« on: November 10, 2009, 06:33:15 AM »
There's a question I've been meaning to ask about for a while because it's been bugging me!

I've noticed that when I'm attacked and debris field forms around my planet a harvester is there to pick it up within 5 minutes. This is confusing because they're the slowest ships around so how did they get there so quickly? If they where dispatched before the attack fleet then how did the attacker do this without the little blue debris ring next to my planets name on the galaxy screen?

Thanks

Pages: 1 2 [3]