Round 60 and beyond
Since I saw Appoco post about ships stats for round 60 and beyond I thought I would have a think about the big picture. This will be my 4th round back after playing here and there since the early rounds. Before I start I do really enjoy PA and this is not a complaining post. Howver I think MOST players would say we need to mix things up abit. The same strats have been used since I've been back and even longer I expect therefore I have come up with a few changes to introduce for the big Round 60. :)
Firstly all the below changes are basic outlines and would need the community to critic them and refine them. Population (I would get rid of the current system and make this into a new system which players develop. So... I would have Resources, Construction, Production time, Security and Mining as the same but instead of adjusting you work on a certain branch... For Example Just like the research tech tree you chose one of the 5 categories set above and after 20 ticks you gain a bonus related to that branch. The 20 ticks would go every 20 ticks until 100 and then change to every 100 ticks. The bonus' I suggest are all a 10% increase in the chosen area maybe capped at 50%. This would hopefully add another dimension to the early strategies and another to compliment governments. Governments (pretty much everyone have the same strats on this up till now) Corp= Mining +25%, Research -10%, Construction +5% Production -5% Stealth -10% and Alert +10%. Demo= Mining -5%, Research +30%, Construction -5% Production 10% Stealth +5% and Alert -10% Nat= Mining +15%, Research +10%, Construction -10% Production +5% Stealth -20% and Alert +25% Soc= Mining +10%, Research +15%, Construction +10% Production +5% Stealth +5% and Alert -5% Tot= Mining 0, Research -15%, Construction +20% Production +15% Stealth -15% and Alert -10% I know these are not big changes from the current set up but I think they are more balanced and will give more variation between player strats. RESEARCH TECH TREE TT & ships: I would leave time travel and ships the same.. Infra: I would remove the 20-50 cons branch Scans: the same except add information on the above Pop changes to Planet scan to help Covert Ops. Cores: 5k-10k-20k-40k (but make the time for 20 to 40 much longer so you pay a penalty for rushing cores) Covert Ops: the same except maybe add a subvert for population. HCT 250as start then.. 500-750-1000-1500-2000-3000-4000 etc.. two new branches.first in construction upgrades... You have the ability to upgrade cons so for example... The first research would upgrade Res Labs.. This would change the original lab from 1in5 cons to 1-10cons effectiveness. The upgrade would cost x1.5 the original cost of construction and 1.5% construction time/points but would offer a x2 increase in effectiveness. So another example if FCs 0.5% would become 1%.. I would leave amps and dists alone and still hold the cap on FCs and maybe MCs(but that's a different discussion:)) So the branch would be as follows: REs Labs expansion-Ref Expansion-Factories exp- FC expansion- MC expansion. The next new branch is Ship upgrades... So... The branch is as follows: Armour upgrade +2% (RP1600)-Damage upgrade +2%(RP1600)-Production cost decrease -2%(RP1600) - Armour upgrade +3% (RP3200)-Damage upgrade +3%(RP3200)-Production cost decrease -3%(RP3200) - Armour upgrade +5% (RP4800)-Damage upgrade +5%(RP4800)- Production Cost decrease -5%(RP4800) the point of this branch and the other new branch is to add some variety. so people are thinking of new strats and also to make res last much longer so your not just stuck with HCT half way through the round. I don't know how hard to code plus the bcalc the ships upgrades branch would be. CONS: would change as described above in the construction upgrade tech branch. I think the overall point of these changes is to give the game a new approach and get players thinking of new strats and keep them not getting bored at week 4-5. I would like to point out that these aren't all my ideas... I have seen some good plans for others in the forum such as Caj and I think there is definite room for changes (more the new ships stats and tweeks of govs)... Please give me your thoughts.. let me know what wouldn't work and if there is anything that would be a good addition... |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
While nerfing other's like democracy... Franctly i find it a bit hilarious. |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
And we all wonder why this game is losing player base.. If it's bad then so be it, but give a balanced opinion as to why and quit the bitching. |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Nownownownow calm down girls, no need to fight.
It shows a lot of people are bothered by the current pop / gov system. We really need some changes here but coming up with a good alternative is not simple. The pa team should push the players more to come with suggestions (use ingame spam or links on the overview). Your suggested structure building upgrades sound like something i wouldn't waste research on, might just as well add a population setting where you can increase research lab effectiveness. Removing the 20-50 cons tech makes no sense to me, why would you want it? Increasing the time needed for cores has no real impact either. The ship upgrades are probably impossible with the current battle engine. It would mean every player has a fleet with different stats. Also it would be horrible to calc battles since you wont know what upgrades people have. So this info needs to be visible on a scan and calc's get over complicated. Good to see new idea's come along, but maybe it's better to focus on 1 of these suggestions and really think it out |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
Quote:
The second it tactical. The sliders give a lot of tactical choice to shift things around at a moment's notice - mainly when you get incs - this does not. You get incs and you have not done one to help production you are stuck with it. This to me reduces the tactical depth of the game. That said there might be ways around my objections; rather than gaining a block bonus every 20/100 ticks pop could constantly produce points that you can then allocate allowing a few to be held back in reserve for when quick changes are needed. Quote:
Quote:
I guess the downside is that this makes calcing a lot more difficult unless the pa calc automatically adds the ship level players are on to the calc when a dev scan is added. It will also have unintended consequences; a damage upgrade helps cat not at all and yet helps xan a huge amount (as they fire first) so making stats more difficult to balance as the statsmaker will need to consider that their stats are then going to be modified by research. |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
So many of theese ideas now tho with too little effort put into them before posting
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
For me its not really about the effort put into posting; if someone has a wonderful idea but does not put the effort into developing it then the community can still do it. It does not invalidate the idea. However those who want to develop ideas need to know what is worth spending the effort on. Essentially we need something outlined by the pa crew giving an idea as to what a, possible and b, realistic rather than simply having people piling up suggestions that will never be implemented. Once the parameters are set then the community can discuss and debate what it would like changed in those parameters.
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
So don't come on here and tell me I put no effort in.. you have no idea if I did or not... Seems that there are some players happy to keep the things the way they are... I'm happy with that but please put that rather than just coming on a slamming my/others suggestions. |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
I thought we should focus on a large number of changes as the game could do with a tweak and I think to do it you need to change a few areas around... so not just tweaking what % a certain government mines etc. I think this is a subject for the whole community to get involved including the Pa crew to take things forward. |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Doubt you find many people more interested in game changes than me, but changes for the worse dont excite me. I prefer a well thought out plan if you gonna change the game totally
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
Quote:
In my opinion your suggestions do not add strategic variety. They're all things that either everyone will do, or no one. The new governments, ship upgrades, construction upgrades and research tree will all be figured out after 1 round and then it's same old again. It's like the ship stats all over again. Changing these numbers around does not solve the problem of the lack of strategic variety in this game. This is the main problem I have with your suggestions: they just change the thing everyone is doing now, to something else that everyone will be doing. In short, I want to achieve the same thing you do, but I feel the mechanisms you've chosen do not work. |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
(I'm not saying wade has or hasn't done these things, this is just a general 'how to succeed at forum posting'.) |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
Quote:
Slight nudges to governments and new (but basically the same) ship stats every round are just tweaks. The problem I have with that is three-fold. One, they detract from efforts to genuinely solve the fundamental problem of the lack of variety in gameplay. Two, they disguise the problem of the lack of strategic choice. But most importantly, what we have is one thing that everyone is forced to do (value play) and the tweaks change that one single thing a little bit every round. In this environment, if you don't like the one thing that PA encourages you to do, then there's no recourse for you. You could try doing something else, but you would get murdered because the entire game is geared towards doing something else (for some great examples of this, look at the dister rankings for the last few rounds) You could quit. Maybe you could just go out and troll people relentlessly, at least that's something that doesn't depend on the game mechanics much. The job of a game designer is not forcing people into playing a certain way. It's to give as many players as possible something they'll enjoy playing. So instead, what we should do is give people a choice between a bunch of different things, and ensuring all of those things are fun (each in their own way) and somewhat balanced (this is actually not so important!). This would allow those players who are tired of strategy A to change to strategy B or C or D, while allowing people who love strategy A to keep playing it. And it wouldn't even take that much effort: - Revert this round's nerf to MCs (but not last round's, probably). - Remove the dist immunity of unit scans and landing scans and put them first in the scan tree. - Make dists ~12-15% faster to build than amps, and about half their cost. - Optionally: turn landing scans into JGPs that only show fleets that land at the same tick as you. Done! You have now fixed disting and kept XP viable, increasing the number of ways you can play from 1 to 3. It's that simple. :( |
Re: Round 60 and beyond
Quote:
|
Re: Round 60 and beyond
I used too enjoy seeing how many minions my planet had.itd be nice having that back and also if it contributed too the gov bonus and/or tied into planet activity/login (drunk hope that makes sense hehe)...
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018