User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 11:32   #1
Fifth_teletubbie
Commander etc
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 436
Fifth_teletubbie is an unknown quantity at this point
I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Whatever happened to Maintenance costs for ships ?
It was discussed extensively in R2 and R3 iirc, but I never understood why it wasnt implemented.

This is THE best equalizer possible imho, it gets rid at a stroke of the incremental-growth problem which is the single biggest unbalancing thing in PA. A lot of other gameplay problems in PA are either the result from it or are exacerbated by it.
It would mean numerous new strategic issues as well, deepening the game.

It would be relatively simple to implement, as score for ships is calculated every tick anyway to update your score. Just take a % of that and subtract it from your resources.
__________________
Daevyll

Ostraka: It's a Social Club with guns (and K-Y)
Fifth_teletubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 11:40   #2
Chax
Pepsi bottle
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 234:4:3
Posts: 440
Chax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the rough
Anything that makes it even more beneficial for people to stockpile resources rather than build ships is bad for the game and makes limits to gal fund necessary.

Limits to the gal fund should go, they're a relic of the days when one could donate to the top.
__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
Chax is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 12:04   #3
Fridge
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Oh my God, the Teletubbie is back

Hi Daevyll
  Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 12:14   #4
Fifth_teletubbie
Commander etc
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 436
Fifth_teletubbie is an unknown quantity at this point
Hi Fridge

As for the galfund, I've never seen much reason for it to begin with and havent seen any reason at all for it since we got the ability to trade directly. Fund can go, MoD can go.
__________________
Daevyll

Ostraka: It's a Social Club with guns (and K-Y)
Fifth_teletubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 12:14   #5
Chax
Pepsi bottle
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 234:4:3
Posts: 440
Chax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the rough
Trade directly?

Only trade I see is through the fund
__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
Chax is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 12:18   #6
Fifth_teletubbie
Commander etc
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 436
Fifth_teletubbie is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Chax
Trade directly?

Only trade I see is through the fund
I may be a bit behind the times, not having played recently.

Regardless, the point stands. Even no trading at all would be a small price to pay for a better game balance imho.
__________________
Daevyll

Ostraka: It's a Social Club with guns (and K-Y)
Fifth_teletubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 14:28   #7
Al_zz
ensign forever
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 326
Al_zz is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Quote:
Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Whatever happened to Maintenance costs for ships ?
It was discussed extensively in R2 and R3 iirc, but I never understood why it wasnt implemented.

This is THE best equalizer possible imho, it gets rid at a stroke of the incremental-growth problem which is the single biggest unbalancing thing in PA. A lot of other gameplay problems in PA are either the result from it or are exacerbated by it.
It would mean numerous new strategic issues as well, deepening the game.

It would be relatively simple to implement, as score for ships is calculated every tick anyway to update your score. Just take a % of that and subtract it from your resources.
I remember having suggested something with simular effect. My suggestion was to scrap a part of the fleet every now and then. For instance 1% per 10 ticks. This was mainly for purpose of delaying stagnation. Because if there is a natural way of resources leaving the game like this, it will keep the ratios down longer and thus make attacking more easy for a longer period.

Added advantage compared to maintenance tax is that reducements in fleet can not lead to negative resources and that is diminishes fleet when people become inactive and makes it easier to exile them or even roid them first before exiling.

So a maintenace tax or something simular as I suggested would both be good ideas inmy opinion.

hAl
Al_zz is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 14:41   #8
Coffee
Ensign
 
Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: An intricate fantasy world.
Posts: 166
Coffee is an unknown quantity at this point
Exclamation

Personally I am in favour of limited lifespan 'roids. Its quite difficult to implement though (but not impossible).
__________________
PIE*
Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 14:44   #9
-QS-
nub since 2002
 
-QS-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: .de
Posts: 349
-QS- is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Quote:
Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Whatever happened to Maintenance costs for ships ?
It was discussed extensively in R2 and R3 iirc, but I never understood why it wasnt implemented.

This is THE best equalizer possible imho, it gets rid at a stroke of the incremental-growth problem which is the single biggest unbalancing thing in PA. A lot of other gameplay problems in PA are either the result from it or are exacerbated by it.
It would mean numerous new strategic issues as well, deepening the game.

It would be relatively simple to implement, as score for ships is calculated every tick anyway to update your score. Just take a % of that and subtract it from your resources.
Consider some1 having to pull and loosing 6 or 8 ticks roids due to a massive attack. Leaving him with 200 roids and 15 mio score (happened to me in a wenx gal R7), how could he afford maintenance for his ships?
__________________
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to keep them for yourself
-QS- is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 14:56   #10
Al_zz
ensign forever
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 326
Al_zz is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Coffee
Personally I am in favour of limited lifespan 'roids. Its quite difficult to implement though (but not impossible).
This will increase the score to roids ratio and therefore induce stagnation earlier !!! Soon all will have relativly big scores with little roids.

hAl
Al_zz is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 15:14   #11
Fifth_teletubbie
Commander etc
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 436
Fifth_teletubbie is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Re: I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Quote:
Originally posted by -QS-
Consider some1 having to pull and loosing 6 or 8 ticks roids due to a massive attack. Leaving him with 200 roids and 15 mio score (happened to me in a wenx gal R7), how could he afford maintenance for his ships?
He'd be faced with either using his ships to get more roids, or losing them in the attempt.
Isnt that what PA is all about?

An interesting side aspect is that it also makes opponents less predictable. Noone wants to lose 1m score for 25 roids, but what if you cant afford to keep those ships anyway? Might as well get some roids back for them.
__________________
Daevyll

Ostraka: It's a Social Club with guns (and K-Y)
Fifth_teletubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 15:32   #12
Chax
Pepsi bottle
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 234:4:3
Posts: 440
Chax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the roughChax is a jewel in the rough
Re: Re: I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Quote:
Originally posted by Al_zz
My suggestion was to scrap a part of the fleet every now and then. For instance 1% per 10 ticks. This was mainly for purpose of delaying stagnation.
Stagnation means no growth. Stagnation wouldn't be delayed by this proposal, it'd come earlier.
__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
Chax is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2003, 15:48   #13
Al_zz
ensign forever
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 326
Al_zz is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Re: Re: I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Quote:
Originally posted by Chax
Stagnation means no growth. Stagnation wouldn't be delayed by this proposal, it'd come earlier.
Nope, you actually get it later. Stagnation in this game mean no more roidsgrowth !!! This is significally dependant on the amount of resources needed to get roids. If the amount of resources defending a roid is low and therefore the costs of gaining roids low than attacking will be popular.

Later in the game roids become more heavily defended and the losses need to get a roid are not in proportion to the gain of that roid. At that time attacking will become less interesting and stagnation with happen. With current stats at around a universe average of 15k score per roid a round is virtually over. If you find a way to remove resources from the game that score per roid will be reached later and therefore the stagnation point will be later.

You could also change the stats so losses are less high on attacking. This will make possible a higher average attack ratio because cost of gaining roids is cheaper but it will also keep more resources in the game as losses on attack are less.

Other way to keep stagnation away is to keep feeding in more roids so the ratio does not climb as fast. This can be done by adding a lot of small planet who keep initiating roids. So a long round would need a growing planets population to keep from stagnating to quickly.

hAl
Al_zz is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Jan 2003, 21:18   #14
Devo
Spinner Flamer Flamer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 100
Devo is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Re: I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Quote:
Originally posted by Al_zz
I remember having suggested something with simular effect. My suggestion was to scrap a part of the fleet every now and then. For instance 1% per 10 ticks. This was mainly for purpose of delaying stagnation. Because if there is a natural way of resources leaving the game like this, it will keep the ratios down longer and thus make attacking more easy for a longer period.

Added advantage compared to maintenance tax is that reducements in fleet can not lead to negative resources and that is diminishes fleet when people become inactive and makes it easier to exile them or even roid them first before exiling.

So a maintenace tax or something simular as I suggested would both be good ideas inmy opinion.

hAl
The problem with that is what happens when some mean person comes and organises a 8 hour roid fest at your place? You obviously run away your fleet, meaning you lose a load of roids. Then you can't afford your fleet, which means you lose ships/score. THis could then make you a great target again leading to another 8 hour roid fest. The cycle could keep going until you may as well have stayed the first time!
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Zh|l
Who are you exactly?
Quote:
Originally posted by Zh|l
Why are you quoting me in your signature?
Devo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Jan 2003, 07:05   #15
ComradeRob
wasted
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
ComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriend
The best argument against it was that the people who would best be able to afford the support costs would be the people with the most roids. In other words, it would punish those who lose roids more than those who don't.
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
ComradeRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Jan 2003, 09:59   #16
JmDiGriz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Maintenance is the solution for a more competetive PA. You need to count in both roids number AND fleet worth.
A ppl with many roids AND a high fleet worth will pay the prize (you can make a max like 75% of your M and C income and a min like 15% maintenance)

This will solve the problem loosing your fleet and having many roids and the other way round less roids and high fleet worth. In both cases you won´t pay a high maintenance.
The effect will be that the whole universe will grow steadier as the bigger ppl will grow slowier as the small ones.

The mathematics behind this are easy. (expotential functions or polynoms with higher order and some koefficients to adjust.

Note:
Make it easier at the start with no maintenance before you reach 3m points AND 300 roids (adjustable)

e.g.:
Ppl A wiht 100m points and 8k roids will pay max maintenance, ppl B wiht 30m and 2k roids far lesser.
Ppl A loose 50% of his fleet or 30% roids in both cases his maintenance will drop.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Jan 2003, 10:52   #17
Fifth_teletubbie
Commander etc
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 436
Fifth_teletubbie is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by ComradeRob
The best argument against it was that the people who would best be able to afford the support costs would be the people with the most roids. In other words, it would punish those who lose roids more than those who don't.
I understand that argument, but I dont agree with it.
The fact is that people who lose most of their roids are ****ed anyway unless they replace them quickly, because of the exponential differences in growth between them and the ones who took the roids from them.

Maintenance would greatly slow down the rate at which differences in size (esp fleet) form, and thus give the people not at the top a better chance of getting back into the fight.
__________________
Daevyll

Ostraka: It's a Social Club with guns (and K-Y)
Fifth_teletubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Jan 2003, 11:15   #18
Al_zz
ensign forever
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 326
Al_zz is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Re: Re: I thought I'd dig up an old corpse

Quote:
Originally posted by Devo
The problem with that is what happens when some mean person comes and organises a 8 hour roid fest at your place? You obviously run away your fleet, meaning you lose a load of roids. Then you can't afford your fleet, which means you lose ships/score. THis could then make you a great target again leading to another 8 hour roid fest. The cycle could keep going until you may as well have stayed the first time!
Losing 1% of your ships per 10 ticks means that even if you run your fleet it will still be only 2% smaller on its return than when it left. That is quite different to staying and be annihilated. Since you rpobably lose about 30 or 40% of your roids and 2 % of your fleet you will be a much less interesting target than before and it is unlickly you get attacked again unless you were extremely roidsheavy to start with.

And since you lose only ships you have you can never be unable to afford it. That will only be possible if you introduce maintenance costs in stead of scrapping fleet.

hAl
Al_zz is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Jan 2003, 11:21   #19
Al_zz
ensign forever
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 326
Al_zz is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by ComradeRob
The best argument against it was that the people who would best be able to afford the support costs would be the people with the most roids. In other words, it would punish those who lose roids more than those who don't.
This is a total crap argument. People with more roids have an advantage over people with less ? Wow, that is what this game is all about !!!
Also you are incorrect as such a measure has an effect on your score percentagewise it means actually that if you two players have the same ratio (score/roids) but are of hugely different size than after maintenace costs or after scrapping a small part of their fleet they wil still have the same score/roids ratio !!! So actually it is of no consequence if you are big or small really.

hAl
Al_zz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26.


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