Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Planetarion Suggestions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   Planetarion Redesign (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=198885)

Light 9 Sep 2010 17:46

Planetarion Redesign
 
The following document is my Design ideas for where to take Planetarion under JageX. Its primary focus is to alter planetarion in the slightest way possible in order to make the game accessible for new players and also to reintroduce strategy in Planetarions gameplay mechanics.

Ive designed these idea's around not upsetting the current community while offering vast improvements to the gameplay of new players, casuals and experience players. So i'm primarily looking for feedback on weither you would disapporve of these changes and why.

Design Document URL: https://sites.google.com/site/katies...edirects=0&d=1
(Download it instead of looking at it through google, for some reason it goes blurry after page 9 through googledocS)

A summary of the changes are:
Population is now a dyanmic figure and plays a central role in a planets development
Players increase population through the living quarters construction
Players are limited to the amount of population they can assign in each area by the constructions they have. ex. To add more population into research, you need the required research labs to put them in.
HTC research is deleted, instead to mine asteroids you now have to put the population into mining for the amount of roids you want to mine (1 pop per roid).
Population can be killed but bunker constructions can provide protection for them from attacks
Research points and construction points are now done solely through population, the player chooses how much they want in each and which areas to specialise in.
Research is now a tech tree with multiple options, offering choices and allowing the user to prioritise the sections they want.
Galaxy research system implemented.
Scan system is overhauled to give every planet basic scans, enough to play the game with but Advanced scans are still researchable and offer more information which experienced players will want (keep scanners viable)
Signup page altered
Protection is altered to be 12 ticks long but players can opt to stay in longer
Shuffle system is overhauled and provides a much better way of spreading the actives around the universe while stopping one-time logins from ruining galaxys.
Governments redeisgned to be changable
Proper quests implemented to guide the new player.

If you're going to comment, please give the design doc a skim through first as it probably explains the points the points you're asking about.

Disclaimer: The design document contains the JageX logo but i am not from JageX nor pretending to be. Apparently JageX could sue me for offering suggestions! So here's the disclaimer, this design doc is not from JageX.

Mzyxptlk 9 Sep 2010 17:56

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198782)
Population is now a dyanmic figure and plays a central role in a planets development
Players increase population through the living quarters construction
Players are limited to the amount of population they can assign in each area by the constructions they have. ex. To add more population into research, you need the required research labs to put them in.
HTC research is deleted, instead to mine asteroids you now have to put the population into mining for the amount of roids you want to mine (1 pop per roid).
Population can be killed but bunker constructions can provide protection for them from attacks
Research points and construction points are now done solely through population, the player chooses how much they want in each and which areas to specialise in.

I like this. It's not particularly revolutionary, but it's more interesting than the "15/50/35 or 25/50/25' choice we have now (and more realistic, for what little that matters)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198782)
Research is now a tech tree with multiple options, offering choices and allowing the user to prioritise the sections they want.

We talked about this. :P

I still don't think your suggestion improves the system that much, mostly because of the heavy interlinking you have between branches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198782)
Galaxy research system implemented.

Being a proponent of abolishing galaxies, I'd prefer moving this to alliances, instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198782)
Scan system is overhauled to give every planet basic scans, enough to play the game with but Advanced scans are still researchable and offer more information which experienced players will want (keep scanners viable)

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198782)
Governments redeisgned to be changable

Not earth-shattering, but improves on the current system because it no longer forces people to make an irreversible choice from ignorance at tick 0.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198782)
Proper quests implemented to guide the new player.

Very good.

Not much more to say, really. You know most of what I like and don't like about it.

Wishmaster 9 Sep 2010 18:17

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Talked in pm with you about all of this. Agree with most of it. And nothing I really disagree with / would make me quit! So I spose thats good.

I would prefer removing the need for scanners alltogether though. And maybe as mz said the research could be in the alliance more than in the galaxy, or maybe both :o

Overall I d like to see the changes done, or atleast have PA under jagex making some changes to a stale gameplay.

:approve:

Tietäjä 9 Sep 2010 18:19

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
A lot of good ideas there. I like the added micromanagement bit, I think this is the kind of a direction the game really needs, a step more into managing your planet. The briefly mentioned "alliance research" for scan trees and such could be a good idea too.

Light 9 Sep 2010 18:33

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198783)
I still don't think your suggestion improves the system that much, mostly because of the heavy interlinking you have between branches.

I think it offers more choice and direction. It forces players to go into branches they might otherwise of ignored which means players will want to go into every branch and be forced into choosing which branches they want to prioritise. (Sorry i know we talked about it before but got to post my side)



Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä (Post 3198786)
A lot of good ideas there. I like the added micromanagement bit, I think this is the kind of a direction the game really needs, a step more into managing your planet. The briefly mentioned "alliance research" for scan trees and such could be a good idea too.

I was thinking about alliance research and couldnt figure out a way to implement it which would be fair.

If we just did an alliance tax, then wouldnt it give the alliances with more players a much bigger advantage (especially if the researches were actually decent)? Forcing alliances to play at full tag even when they dont want to isnt really a good thing.

It could be done through the alliance points system but i think it'd be better to see how that turns out before we implement major gameplay mechanics to it.

Tietäjä 9 Sep 2010 18:43

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198790)

I was thinking about alliance research and couldnt figure out a way to implement it which would be fair.

I think it deserves more attention as a thought however, as I've mentioned before I'm all in for adding more emphasis for alliance in game functions instead of alliances being simple social networks.

In terms of "fairness", is it bluntly necessary for alliance abilities to be a function of alliance size? Maybe set some limits, but strictly giving larger alliances (by size) an advantage is both unnecessary and counterproductive.


Quote:

It could be done through the alliance points system but i think it'd be better to see how that turns out before we implement major gameplay mechanics to it.
I'm just tossing out vague ideas, but how about giving alliances in-game features that affect their members?

Ie. You could invest from alliance resource pool into:

1. Science programs - increasing research output of member planets
2. Construction programs - increasing construction output of member planets
3. Alliance technology programs - putting in research for scans
4. War programs - say, increasing salvage amounts

Mzyxptlk 9 Sep 2010 19:14

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198790)
I think it offers more choice and direction. It forces

Yep. It forces. :)

AndroX 9 Sep 2010 22:27

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
A lot of these things are great, a few are not so great. This document shows addons that are all great, however; it does not show anything about things taht are currently already coded into the game. Such as restrictions on whom to defend and bugs in current quests and startup.

But to stick to the idea's and document -> looks all great!

Light 10 Sep 2010 00:23

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198792)
Yep. It forces. :)

but anything research system forces players to choose which area's to prioritise. A tree just allows the game to put less desirable researches which would otherwise be ignored in the path of highly desirable ones or allows you to put the extremly diserable researches which everyone wants further back in the tree. It also allows you to stagger things in the game, when you dont want them accessable at signup but later on in the game when the player really wants them.

Quote:

A lot of these things are great, a few are not so great. This document shows addons that are all great, however; it does not show anything about things taht are currently already coded into the game. Such as restrictions on whom to defend and bugs in current quests and startup.
Cant solve everything at once :)

tobbe 10 Sep 2010 07:07

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Nice suggestions Light :)
I hope we atleast can see some of them implemented !
:up:

Nitz 10 Sep 2010 09:36

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Great post Light, I think most/all of those changes would keep me interested in PA for a few more years

Dworschi 10 Sep 2010 10:59

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
tons of good suggestions here ...
but will any of these ever be implemented ?

and will jagex pay you for your effort ? .. they hardly have to think about anything now except new credit price when its finished :P

Mzyxptlk 10 Sep 2010 12:43

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Except new payment system when it's finished. Yeah.

Light 10 Sep 2010 19:11

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitz (Post 3198815)
Great post Light, I think most/all of those changes would keep me interested in PA for a few more years

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobbe (Post 3198812)
Nice suggestions Light :)
I hope we atleast can see some of them implemented !
:up:

Thank you, just remember this is a VERY rough draft i rushed through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dworschi (Post 3198817)
tons of good suggestions here ...
but will any of these ever be implemented ?

No idea, Its not my choice.

Quote:

and will jagex pay you for your effort ? .. they hardly have to think about anything now except new credit price when its finished :P
I've done this for fun, not to be paid; The PA Team isnt even paid :p

Cochese 10 Sep 2010 22:46

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Mostly all good stuff there.

MrLobster 11 Sep 2010 07:50

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Metal: Primarily used for building ‘kill’ ships and constructions.
Crystal: Primarily used for building ‘freeze’ ships and research.
Eonium: Primarily used for fuel, scans and covert-ops
Please can we remove to pretty useless 3 resource and just use a single one?

I would think a change to roids could be better
1) Renamed "moons"
2) HP increased x10
3) Output increased x10
4) You dont "capture" moons but occupy/colonise them. Gets around the "bringing them home" problem.

So instead of people owning 3000 roids they would have 300 colonized moons. Could lead the way to land based combat... possibly...

Rename the "universe->galaxy->sector" to "galaxy->solarsystem->planet" so you could have multiple galaxies at a later date.

Change Governments for Leaders, this way you can hire and fire them at will. Leaders increase in effectiveness over time, but they cost more to fire the longer they are hired.

Quote:

Galaxy ETA: The galaxy ETA will start at eta 7 and there will be 3 levels which allow the galaxy to get their in-galaxy defense eta down to eta 4. The first level will unlock the Minister of War position that can see all the galaxies ships.
Hopefully this is optional for the players?

Quote:

Galaxy Exile: The galaxy can research the ability to exile planets.
Exile should be removed. And galaxy disband should be improved.

Munkee 11 Sep 2010 07:51

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
lol at the "difficulty" scale, is that driven by data or gut feeling?

Mzyxptlk 11 Sep 2010 09:28

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Munkee (Post 3198841)
lol at the "difficulty" scale, is that driven by data or gut feeling?

I think you can answer that question all by yourself once you realise that there were no numbers on either axis.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198840)
Please can we remove to pretty useless 3 resource and just use a single one?

Why is this a better solution than making the 3 resources serve a different purpose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198840)
So instead of people owning 3000 roids they would have 300 colonized moons. Could lead the way to land based combat... possibly...

I think you have yet to explain why this is a good thing. You didn't respond to my criticism of this in that other thread either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198840)
Change Governments for Leaders, this way you can hire and fire them at will. Leaders increase in effectiveness over time, but they cost more to fire the longer they are hired.

Third time is the charm: why is this a good idea? How does it improve the playing experience?

MrLobster 11 Sep 2010 09:56

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198843)
Why is this a better solution than making the 3 resources serve a different purpose?

a) So much easier to balance.
b) You can max out in spending your resource, no need to swap around resources.
c) Easier for new players to understand, I could walk around with my money all in change 1p,2p,etc or I could just use my credit card. Which I think is easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198843)
I think you have yet to explain why this is a good thing. You didn't respond to my criticism of this in that other thread either.

tbh no it doesnt do anything other than make it more believable (if such a thing can exist in a scifi game).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198843)
Third time is the charm: why is this a good idea? How does it improve the playing experience?

Governments themselves are the thing that drives the "planet", why do you need a government if your the ruler of the planet. You would have advisor's. Doing it this way would give the idea more credibility.

But this also means that it would be good to have negative effects on your planet, for example increasing research (+20%) would decreasing construction (-20%).

Mzyxptlk 11 Sep 2010 10:29

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198844)
a) So much easier to balance.

I don't understand, what is there to balance, from a design point of view? Say you've got a very uneven system, in which metal is needed 4 times more than crystal and crystal 4 times more than eonium. Why is this a problem? Everyone will get roids in a ratio of 16:4:1 and the "problem" solves itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198844)
b) You can max out in spending your resource, no need to swap around resources.

I don't think this is a problem, considering that we have 3 different ways already to trade resources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198844)
c) Easier for new players to understand, I could walk around with my money all in change 1p,2p,etc or I could just use my credit card. Which I think is easier.

Having more than one type of resource is hardly a revolutionary game feature. Anyone who's played Starcraft, Red Alert, Civilisation and ****ing Farmville knows how it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198844)
Governments themselves are the thing that drives the "planet", why do you need a government if your the ruler of the planet. You would have advisor's. Doing it this way would give the idea more credibility.

I agree that the word "democracy" (for example) makes very little sense when you are the sole and absolute ruler of your planet for 1177 ticks.

In fact, I think that the whole government game mechanic (regardless of what we want to call it) is a bit pointless. It's just yet another way (on top of races and population) to boost a certain part of your planet in favour of another. Why do we need 3 different mechanisms for this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198844)
But this also means that it would be good to have negative effects on your planet, for example increasing research (+20%) would decreasing construction (-20%).

This seems a non-sequitur.

[B5]Londo 11 Sep 2010 10:48

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198844)
a) So much easier to balance.
b) You can max out in spending your resource, no need to swap around resources.
c) Easier for new players to understand, I could walk around with my money all in change 1p,2p,etc or I could just use my credit card. Which I think is easier.

U can use a credit card, but the things u buy have to be made out of particular materials, metals cannot be instantly be changed into something else, U are suggesting you might try to run your car with an iron bar in the fuel tank rather than petrol. In wartime these resource flows become critical and so actually having several resources is actually more realistic - which is precisely the reason u posit for moon colonisation rather than roids. I also disagree with that, tho essentially for sentimental reasons, some things ought to remain the same so planetarion retains a superficial familiarity.

Light 11 Sep 2010 13:37

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
I cant really comment on your other ideas, as i dont really see what problem they're solving and i always heavily disagree with the idea that nerfing something down to its simplest form is better for new players, when all it tends to do is make the game more boring and static which lacks diversity.

Especially as overhauling the asteroid mechanic is a major change as Asteroids as are one of the main defining features of Planetarion. It'd have to be an absolutly awesome idea which solves everything and causes no other problems in order to even be considered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198844)
Governments themselves are the thing that drives the "planet", why do you need a government if your the ruler of the planet. You would have advisor's. Doing it this way would give the idea more credibility.

But this also means that it would be good to have negative effects on your planet, for example increasing research (+20%) would decreasing construction (-20%).

I sort of agree with you, Ive addressed this in my updated design document im working on at the moment but dont really want to comment on it as i dont have it ready at the moment. Instead of governments and advisors, you develop social traits for your planet which have certain benefits and are mutually exclusive between each other. Basically, heavily influenced by the Civ5 new government mechanic, as i think it'd fit in perfectly with planetarion, be easy to understand, and allows for diversity/strategys.

MrLobster 11 Sep 2010 15:10

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198845)
I don't understand, what is there to balance, from a design point of view? Say you've got a very uneven system, in which metal is needed 4 times more than crystal and crystal 4 times more than eonium. Why is this a problem? Everyone will get roids in a ratio of 16:4:1 and the "problem" solves itself.

Thats if the new stats for Light's design are different that we have now, if it goes back to metal>crystal>eonium, then I see no problem (as long as other areas also vary the ratios. I dont want to see the current almost equal resource for everything.

Obviously I would think that some races use more of a resource in a paticular ship type (more Crystal in EMP, more Eonium in cloak). But never above any of the other resources.

What I would like to see is this in the resource breakup...

Ter Ships - Ratio: 10/5/2 (17)
Cat Ships - Ratio: 8/6/3 (17)
Xan Ships - Ratio: 7/5/5 (17)
Zik Ships - Ratio: 9/4/4 (17)
Etd Ships - As above for each ship damage type.

Ratio Key: M/C/E

The stats can be varied to match the current cheaper "swarm" ships with less power (16 or 15).

I also think that we should have the same M>C>E in the roid init.

Population
All other forms of resource spending could be removed in favour of population wages, so it only costs resource when using population. This could mean that as a player increases in size it also costs more to develop, if they use more pop.

This would lead better to a single resource (aka currency as I do keep pushing it), but I suppose the current m/c/e could be used to do it.

So instead of items having a cost, it would have a time taken, and the population wages would determin the cost. Including a small increase in wages the more population are used in an area means you can include more pop into an area but it will cost more and more.

Spies
Also recruiting from said population to be spies. This would need a change on the quantities I feel.

Mzyxptlk 11 Sep 2010 15:34

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198849)
Thats if the new stats for Light's design are different that we have now, if it goes back to metal>crystal>eonium, then I see no problem (as long as other areas also vary the ratios. I dont want to see the current almost equal resource for everything.

Agreed.

Influence 11 Sep 2010 17:09

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198790)
HTC research is deleted, instead to mine asteroids you now have to put the population into mining for the amount of roids you want to mine (1 pop per roid).

You suggest every man on my planet should work 24/7? They'd clearly die after 100 ticks then(lack of sleep/food)... or become degradingly less effective after 12(lack of energy/focus)... For any effective 24/7 mining operation they should work in a schedule of at least 3 or 4 shifts. and you would thus need 3 or 4 pop per roid.

Also as asteroids can clearly not be mined by a single miner (unless you give them very powerful mining tools) every mining crew should consist of 5 members. ofc these mining crews can be trained from your pop whereas you need 3 or 4 mining crews per roid. Or you could make it so that a mining crew consist of 15 or 20 pop which work in shifts without the planet ruler managing them. and then you'd need only 1 mining crew per roid.

Mzyxptlk 11 Sep 2010 17:14

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
lol

Korsan 11 Sep 2010 17:59

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Thumbs up to all.

Plus I want ship stats redesigned as mentioned HERE

But I'd like more than just 100 pop per residence (something like 100k would be more appropiate i think).

Also a limit on how much % of your population can be assigned would be great. Having 100% of your entire population working for science would be unrealistic.

So maybe we could take into consideration the hard coded limit we have at current pa. The only difference should be that assigning population no longer works just through sliders but as you mentioned through buildings

MrLobster 11 Sep 2010 18:23

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Korsan (Post 3198855)
But I'd like more than just 100 pop per residence (something like 100k would be more appropiate i think).

Well all you need to do is place a "k" char at the end of the number :P

I would say that population structures be named "cities" or something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korsan (Post 3198855)
Also a limit on how much % of your population can be assigned would be great. Having 100% of your entire population working for science would be unrealistic.

if you have 100% working in science, your getting no resources, no building of constructions, no building of ships and no one on guard duty.

Korsan 12 Sep 2010 03:40

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198856)
if you have 100% working in science, your getting no resources, no building of constructions, no building of ships and no one on guard duty.

100% was an exaggerated value to show we need a lock somewhere.

MrLobster 12 Sep 2010 09:09

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Korsan (Post 3198857)
100% was an exaggerated value to show we need a lock somewhere.

An upper lock is the problem we have atm, most people put 25% into mining, 50% research, 25% cons. Then switch research to security at the end.

Its because the current system just "adds" to values, it doesnt actually set the value. Everything starts at 100%, and your given the "added" bonus from the population with no real downside.

I suppose I can see from the perspective that a scientist doesnt work for nothing, so perhaps we need farms that provide food for the population, so you can never have all your pop in one area.

Light 12 Sep 2010 09:42

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Korsan (Post 3198855)
Also a limit on how much % of your population can be assigned would be great. Having 100% of your entire population working for science would be unrealistic.

The cap is through constructions.

A player can choose what he wants to assign his population to, one player might decide to build research labs to get their population into research to rush something, another may decide to build more construction yards to increase there construction speed for more pop/refineries, another may just spam build living quarters as they're roiding alot.

Whatever a player chooses to do, they're behind in the other area's. Players will tend to the majority of there population into mining if they have the roids but especially early on, someone who gets alot of roids and wants to mine them all will be sacrificing there research/construction speed.

Quote:

So maybe we could take into consideration the hard coded limit we have at current pa. The only difference should be that assigning population no longer works just through sliders but as you mentioned through buildings
There is a limit.
Research labs highers the amount you can put into research etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198858)
An upper lock is the problem we have atm, most people put 25% into mining, 50% research, 25% cons. Then switch research to security at the end.

Its because the current system just "adds" to values, it doesnt actually set the value. Everything starts at 100%, and your given the "added" bonus from the population with no real downside.

I suppose I can see from the perspective that a scientist doesnt work for nothing, so perhaps we need farms that provide food for the population, so you can never have all your pop in one area.

A player will never have all their population in one area, as it heavily sacrifices other area's of their game. A player who spams research labs, will be behind on constructions, security, shipyards. They will also need to keep buying living quarters if they wish to get more and more roids, which means sacrificing constructions (construction speed) will start to have a negative effect on their gameplay.

Players can choose which area's they prioritise (or try to balance every area) but prioritising one area has a negative effect on the other area's. It allows more strategys to be developed within the population system with each strategy having its time in the round where its good but also stages where other strategys are better.

MrLobster 12 Sep 2010 10:21

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Can we please have a techtree that takes longer than the current one, most people do travel, hulls,HCT, and the rest once those 3 lines are finished.

Took me less than 500 ticks to get the major ones, and no doubt could be done faster.

Light 12 Sep 2010 10:57

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
I'll aim to get my updated (non-rushed) design document out by next sunday where i'll have the tech-tree and go through multiple different strategys the population system allows (and the drawbacks) so you can see what i mean when i say a player will not put 100% of their population in anything although they can put the majority into an area, it will have significant impact on their game.

Light 12 Sep 2010 11:00

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Influence (Post 3198851)
You suggest every man on my planet should work 24/7? They'd clearly die after 100 ticks then(lack of sleep/food)... or become degradingly less effective after 12(lack of energy/focus)... For any effective 24/7 mining operation they should work in a schedule of at least 3 or 4 shifts. and you would thus need 3 or 4 pop per roid.

Also as asteroids can clearly not be mined by a single miner (unless you give them very powerful mining tools) every mining crew should consist of 5 members. ofc these mining crews can be trained from your pop whereas you need 3 or 4 mining crews per roid. Or you could make it so that a mining crew consist of 15 or 20 pop which work in shifts without the planet ruler managing them. and then you'd need only 1 mining crew per roid.

It is designed to be the easiest to understand way of doing it.
1 population in mining = 1 roid mined.
1 population in research = 1 research point per tick.
1 population in construction = 1 construction point per tick.
1 population in shipyards = 1 production point per tick.
Security is abit different as it depends on your current construction level.
The only section which requires more than 1 population to function, is the refineries due to them having more resources per tick than asteroids, they require more population.

Illuvatar 12 Sep 2010 11:09

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198849)

Spies
Also recruiting from said population to be spies. This would need a change on the quantities I feel.

I like the idea of recruiting spies via population and send them into different parts of the universe. At the moment intelligence is more or less done by individuals who prolly have enough data storage of the current planetarion playerbase than one could think. I vote for a better intelligence system which is easier to look through. could be more concrete I know but so far my thoughts.

Mzyxptlk 12 Sep 2010 12:44

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
When population is actually used absolutely, instead of relatively, training people to become spies, guards, even pilots becomes a real option.

Truth be told though, I'm not quite sure if implementing that that would be a good idea.

Illuvatar 12 Sep 2010 14:14

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198865)
When population is actually used absolutely, instead of relatively, training people to become spies, guards, even pilots becomes a real option.

Truth be told though, I'm not quite sure if implementing that that would be a good idea.

I am for that matter.

Mzyxptlk 12 Sep 2010 14:53

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Do you have any arguments for that?

Light 12 Sep 2010 15:26

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Varok (Post 3198863)
I like the idea of recruiting spies via population and send them into different parts of the universe. At the moment intelligence is more or less done by individuals who prolly have enough data storage of the current planetarion playerbase than one could think. I vote for a better intelligence system which is easier to look through. could be more concrete I know but so far my thoughts.

This is one of the idea's for the future development of population but at the moment i dont really have any concrete ideas for it, let alone the benefits it would bring.

But the concept is that while population grows over time, the player can use some of there population to do certain tasks.. Like if they wanted to send 10 spies on a covert-operations mission, they would lose 10 population. The problem is, i cant see what it would add to the game and other area's where the system could be implemented.

My redesign thought, is about putting the foundations in place first before expanding on them. A dynamic population system paves the way for alot of different changes which could be implemented and it'll be important to implement the system before working on ways to improve it, as the changes would heavily depend on how the community uses it and what they're regarding as valuable.

In my new redesign, ive changed covert-operations to try and make it more valuable to the average player and make it more useful in alliance warefare. So it'd be important to wait and see if players use it the way its intended and weither it requires any changes before adding population drawbacks into its use.

MrLobster 12 Sep 2010 15:46

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3198868)
This is one of the idea's for the future development of population but at the moment i dont really have any concrete ideas for it, let alone the benefits it would bring.

But the concept is that while population grows over time, the player can use some of there population to do certain tasks.. Like if they wanted to send 10 spies on a covert-operations mission, they would lose 10 population. The problem is, i cant see what it would add to the game and other area's where the system could be implemented.

A previous suggestion by me was to have individual spies, each with their own alert/stealth status.

This would only require 1 pop then, which isnt a huge loss.

Once you start down the hiring from population, you can include things such as universities. To training spies, Leaders (advisors), miners, etc. But thats for PA 2.1.

Light 13 Sep 2010 13:01

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3198869)
A previous suggestion by me was to have individual spies, each with their own alert/stealth status.

This would only require 1 pop then, which isnt a huge loss.

Once you start down the hiring from population, you can include things such as universities. To training spies, Leaders (advisors), miners, etc. But thats for PA 2.1.

Yes, starting to get abit too complicated for the first step :p

MrLobster 14 Sep 2010 11:40

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
I just had a thought about mining roids.

1) Spaceport.
You build these constructions (M/C/E sliders or something) which takes the usually 50 pop to fill each, and it works the same as 1 pop per roid. It slows down roidage, and I think would help new players understand limits to roid counts.

2) Structure costs.
I would propose the cost to build constructions be either;
a) Removed
b) A Fixed amount of resource - This still means at the start it costs enough resource at the start to think about a strategy.

Currently structure costs are nothing to players at a medium-high level, and only hinder new players.

3) Exponential Construction Time.
In the place of structure costs, would be an exponential increase in build times (quick to learn, hard to master.. Mz).

This also means top players must increase pop into structure building to keep up.

isildurx 14 Sep 2010 14:25

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Or cons time could increase due to;

a)finding the space to build a con on the planet gets harder
b) no more room on the home planet thus you have to build the construction on the 'moons' you capture. Although I guess this gets a bit complicated as then you would loose cons due to the enemy capturing and/or destroying the cons if he steals the moon from you.

Mzyxptlk 14 Sep 2010 15:45

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Upgrading > Building anew.

Illuvatar 14 Sep 2010 16:32

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3198867)
Do you have any arguments for that?

ye. theres prolly enough people who would give "redesigned pa PA II whatever you call it" a chance while not having the urgent need of spending 2+ hrs on irc chatting and whatnot to get a clue whats going on. surely its a matter of trust but I dont think any player should have a disadvantage when it comes to that. communitys? this is overrated atm imo as I count 2 maybe 3 bigger communitys who might have a decent idea of intel. whatever...

Mzyxptlk 14 Sep 2010 16:56

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
what

MrLobster 14 Sep 2010 19:19

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Population Death

Rather than just a random pop death formula, base it like this.

1) Any structure that's destroyed, has up to 20% of its workers killed (1 minimum, 20% max).
2) Bunkers have much more HP so should have less deaths.

Another Roid Change
Its possible to just have 1 single roid (not M/C/E), but use the "spaceports" idea to set the amounts you want to mine of each resource.

Ave 15 Sep 2010 03:10

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Light you are missing the most important parts.

PA is a game of roid swapping and there are no battles apart from some late round fleet catches. This need to change!

The game needs to support people for landing on some losses (for example to make kills) without suffering self too much for the rest of the round. No one yet came up with a better suggestion than Attackers Salvage.

Also the heat should be turned away from easy roiding to top gals, whom can also handle the incs a bit better without losing interest or focus of the game.

Yet again some NFI (top ally) players had no incs after tick 200.
Here I would still suggest fleet morals and turning xp in to some goods instead of just free score, which in the end do not courage landings so much.

Light 18 Sep 2010 11:15

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Sorry, been busy with work the past few days but ive nearly finished my proper design document. Most the work is done, just got to finish the appendix and numbers now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3199002)
1) Spaceport.
You build these constructions (M/C/E sliders or something) which takes the usually 50 pop to fill each, and it works the same as 1 pop per roid. It slows down roidage, and I think would help new players understand limits to roid counts.

I think the new population system would slow down roidage alot while also giving strategy. Their is now no 'hard limit' to the amount of asteroids a planet can mine but the more population the player diverts to mining the less population they have in research/constructions (less population in research obviously means longer to get eta, upgrades, etc and less population in constructions means it takes the player longer to increase their population which automatically slows down the players ability to mine more asteroids).

Theirs now strategy in the amount of asteroids a player mines, Ive also altered the quest system slightly to highlight the population mining mechanic.

Quote:

2) Structure costs.
I would propose the cost to build constructions be either;
a) Removed
b) A Fixed amount of resource - This still means at the start it costs enough resource at the start to think about a strategy.

Currently structure costs are nothing to players at a medium-high level, and only hinder new players.
Theirs only 5 main constructions now and the player does not build anymore except for upgrading their current constructions. This allows me to alter the build time, cost, and what the upgrade gives.

Im currently trying to find a balance where the player sometimes will have to save up for a construction and at the start of the game, resources are tight.

Quote:

3) Exponential Construction Time.
In the place of structure costs, would be an exponential increase in build times (quick to learn, hard to master.. Mz).

This also means top players must increase pop into structure building to keep up.
Yes, it already does that.. same as research. To ensure that players have to keep upgrading their population, construction, research buildings and neglecting one area has a real effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3199015)
Upgrading > Building anew.

Thats annoyed me, came up with the idea afew days ago when playing War of Legends. Where the player upgrades the 5 main population buildings instead of building new ones. However, im toying with the idea of implementing one time constructions which offer boosts in some areas which are unlocked through the research tree.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3199022)
Population Death

Rather than just a random pop death formula, base it like this.

1) Any structure that's destroyed, has up to 20% of its workers killed (1 minimum, 20% max).
2) Bunkers have much more HP so should have less deaths.

Im still wondering weither to actually implement structure kilers and how i'd do the formula. Im trying to keep every formula as simple as possible but as effective as possible and structure killers seem either useless or over-powered. It becomes more of a problem now that constructions are extremly important.

Quote:

Another Roid Change
Its possible to just have 1 single roid (not M/C/E), but use the "spaceports" idea to set the amounts you want to mine of each resource.

Lol, ive overhauled the resources, eoniums deleted and replaced with something else, as i could not find a way to make eonium work and be useful for something.

Light 18 Sep 2010 11:18

Re: Planetarion Redesign
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ave (Post 3199029)
Light you are missing the most important parts.

PA is a game of roid swapping and there are no battles apart from some late round fleet catches. This need to change!

The game needs to support people for landing on some losses (for example to make kills) without suffering self too much for the rest of the round. No one yet came up with a better suggestion than Attackers Salvage.

Also the heat should be turned away from easy roiding to top gals, whom can also handle the incs a bit better without losing interest or focus of the game.

Yet again some NFI (top ally) players had no incs after tick 200.
Here I would still suggest fleet morals and turning xp in to some goods instead of just free score, which in the end do not courage landings so much.

Believe me, i havent forgot about that. The two main problems in that design document which i purposly ignored were the lack of combat and the 4am attacks. I was in a rush and figuring out mechanics to fix those problems would of taken more twice as long as it would to fix every other problem.

Ive started to address the combat mechanics in my non-rushed design document and its now just trying to find a balance between defending and attacking, as no matter what i do.. ive got to keep defending possible, advantageous and maybe profitable, considering defending each other is the main driving force of socialisation in PA.

The main problem im having though, is that no matter what i do.. if i force combat and ship loss without 100% salvage, then it becames a game of chance on weither or not the defending planet has moved their fleet or not.

Im not doing anything to alter the 4am roiding at the moment except for some minor tweaks.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018