12/4/2017
Topic:
Sector 1 Warpgate Locations and levels
Cogs
|
CptCommanche wrote:
Sol
Sol - Moon L5 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Sol | The Moon | Baldurs Gate 122070317 : 190429557
Sol - Mars L1 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Sol | Mars | WGT50167 122070352 : 190429802
Centauri
Centauri VIII L3 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Centauri | Centauri VIII | GateDepression 122071422 : 190428327
Centauri VI L3 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Centauri | Centauri VI | Gresham Gate 122071752 : 190428427
Gulyaev
Gulyaev IId L6 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Gulyaev | Gulyaev IId | Door of the Night 122067817 : 190428507
Gulyaev V L3 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Gulyaev | Gulyaev V | WGT49613 122067922 : 190428372
Luyten
Luyten VI L3 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Luyten | Luyten VIb | Epoch Gate 122073327 : 190427722
Luyten II L2 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Luyten | Luyten II | WGT57546 122073522 : 190427777
Rigil
Rigil I L2 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Rigil | Rigil I | Gate2 122070947 : 190425872
Panther
Panther I L3 Alpha | Orion | Sector 1 | Panther | Panther I | WGT57697 122065922 : 190424727
No warpgates in the following systems:
Sirius
Naertho
Wolf
Burkam
edited by CptCommanche on 11/9/2017
Warp Gate on Sol/IO was removed a few weeks ago |
12/7/2017
Topic:
Another pirating order suggestion
Cogs
|
A while ago we debated about the idea of introducing the –capture- order: confiscating units from rival players under certain conditions.
Now, here is another suggestion of a similar type, yet this time for structures (keep in mind this would come in line for corporation that could decide to go rogue or pirate for a time, or completely I guess).
- The order would be an –occupy- order
- It would allow the invader to produce or mine at an active or inactive factory or mine for a limited or set amount of turns
- Supposedly at best if no military unit is guarding location, to avoid a battle report
- Then there are two options: 1) either it is left to the owner to notice he was leeched or wrongly exploited, on his assets list however he can see the structure in question is not on halt 2) a report/message is delivered – not public, only player related – yet the name of the leeching corporation is not revealed
- In case of the option 1) it is left to the leeching player to gamble about how many turns his unit(s) would stay without being noticed or risk staying until cargo is filled
- In case of the latter option 2) here above, an effective maximum limit of turns is set and after the leeching unit left it will not be allowed to occupy again for a certain amount of turns ..
So far to this, now debate ;-)
Cheers! |
12/7/2017
Topic:
#! Priority: FIX THE LAAAAAAG!
Cogs
|
I agree with the multiple tab suggestion, works best for now .. just don't go above 8 or 10 open tabs, your browser's cache won't like it .. |
2/26/2018
Topic:
Military upkeep costs, idle, waiting, guard mode
Cogs
|
Hi all,
this has been bothering me (and others) for a long while now: the military upkeep costs in guard, idle and waiting mode, how are these costs justified to be the same as in active mode (mining, transferring, in transit, in combat, sell, deploy, search) ?
Understandably, a minimum of upkeep charges are required for maintenance and servicing, then comes the workforce or operating troopers (and pilots) to run the units and the costs involved for this related activity. When the unit is active the expenses for the required energy to run it are obviously needed (for infantry or commandos it could be defined as the risk bonus).
So, just like factories, in idle or static mode a minimum expenses should be required, but not the same full amount as when in action. In waiting mode a little more is charged as the crew is on stand by, and in guard mode add another bonus to pay. Add a bonus for combat.
That makes 5 expense degrees for military units depending on activity.
What you think ? |
3/26/2018
Topic:
Violation by Sore Cogs & Dragons Gear
Cogs
|
That is good news Doctor Dread, thank you for working on aspects of the game rendering it more exciting and perhaps more attractive to a wider audience.
And thank you to Baldurs for involuntary participating as a guinea pig which allowed to steer onto some additional potential path this game is in need of. |
3/26/2018
Topic:
Violation by Sore Cogs & Dragons Gear
Cogs
|
Oh! Hi Baldur, you still here? Congrats on your tenacity. When do you intend to become active again? Actually no need to tell, since you're just a passenger on this platform.
By the way, the explanations were offered several times, do you need them again ?
- Baldurs Syndicate has no HQ which avoids it appearing in reports and renders its operation bulletins and reviews non-existent.
- Since its net worth is 87 Billion and its small amount of assets is barely active, a small raid was not considered to be really hurtful
- With all that wealth in its vault there was no security or military present to protect it or ready to jump in and fight back, meaning it was not because it is an easy target but it was to prove that with all that money you better at least invest in military means to keep your assets safe from raids instead of relying on others to keep and fight raiders and Machines away and at bay (you sort of play the role of a parasite). Static military structures are not sufficient, Raiders and Machines, and Kaijus alike, are also capable of destroying transports and freighters.
- All the accumulated wealth that is not spend could help support and expand the economy in general, yet it just sits there, it is capital leeched from the galaxy that could be put and invested to better use
- This made Baldurs Syndicate a justified target to demonstrate a different and possible aspect of the game .. as for the warp freighter this became an unfortunate casualty caught in the crossfire during the demonstration
- Because of the character and personality of Baldurs Syndicate's CEO we new we would receive plenty of coverage and exposure instituted by him, and we thank him for this too
edited by Surgicus on 3/26/2018 |
3/26/2018
Topic:
Violation by Sore Cogs & Dragons Gear
Cogs
|
Hutton, aka City of New York - now Municipal Archives, you nailed it, you are right on when advocating the positions of Sore Cogs and Dragons Gear.
So, if reparations are what is now the concern, what about a compromise: when Seren has introduced what he describes above, and Baldurs is becoming constructively active again, with a military that speaks for his net worth, then Sore Cogs would give him 3 AX Mysterious, 2 AX Dimensional and 1 AX Metaphysics .. Sore Cogs could replace his warp freighter but Dragons Gear is intrigued and annoyed as to why Baldurs refuses to establish an HQ and presenting more transparency in regards to his corporation, so if the the three conditions are fulfilled the artifact offer would then be switched to a fully equipped warp freighter. |
6/7/2018
Topic:
Cruise missiles
Cogs
|
Hi,
After checking military display in viewscreen, I looked up into Dark Star Empire again, and figured there is a military asset/unit missing in the game: cruise missiles ..
Why always send ships or troupes to combat risking losing the unit(s) and be burdened with repair costs, when missiles could be build? Those would also count as having an impact on logistics, cost somewhat a lot, yet do the damage without the need to worry about anything else in the aftermath .. so, blowing up, or rather weakening or defeating, a Dark Star base (requiring a collection of missiles), or any Star, would be to first begin with a missile strike and then send in the ships/troupes to finish it off .. yeah?
Of course countermeasures would be offered as well, in form of special units or already existing ones that would also be able to track and target the missiles .. like the static missile turrets and orbital guns should already be able to do this .. could also be a special upgrade for units/ships or even a special artifacts..
Cheers!
edited by Surgicus on 6/7/2018 |
8/13/2018
Topic:
What should we work on next?
Cogs
|
This was in regards to "without contracts" In my view this is already feasible, does already exist, by preparing a stack of products separately or away from the main storage location, then when setting up a contact in -List my products- the stack can be chosen, and with this the proposed feature is achieved: contracting a stack of product at a specific location, where the concerned will change hands upon acceptance of the contract. Now if one or more separate stacks of the same product could be prepared at the same location (by giving them a name, like a units group or fleet, so perhaps even a stack of mixed products?) this would then make sense as an innovative feature and certainly come in handy.
Somehow I had the page open after switching wi-fi connection and the thing lost my login yet still recognized me as -Guest- .. ? Go figure ..
edited by Surgicus on 8/13/2018 |