5/18/2018
Topic:
Orion Gladiator League Forming
LunaMoth
|
I think another event that would be interesting is if everyone was given the same number and type of units and told to battle it out in a 9x9 square (or maybe a moon for fighters/bombers/variteks). For example, one simple combination could be:
- 2 level 1 structures separated by 2 squares
- 2 groups of 3 level 1 infantry (2x3x1=6) that cannot be separated on each structure
- 1 group of 2 level 1 commandos (1x2x1=2) that cannot be separated on one structure
- 1 level 1 artillery (1x1x1=1) on one structure
The end goal could be to either eliminate all units, destroy the enemy buildings, or deal the most damage to enemy buildings.
edited by LunaMoth on 5/18/2018 |
6/5/2018
Topic:
Guide: Artifact List
LunaMoth
|
bump |
6/15/2018
Topic:
Game loop
LunaMoth
|
My experience with this game is that if there is peace, it isn't difficult to become a "big fish". There have been many examples in this game's history of innovators and leaders that rise to the top. I don't think many people care about being a big fish though. There are some that like city building, some that like exploring and interacting with the game, some that like creating fun/entertaining content, and some that like interacting with the community. These things and perhaps others would be limited in periodic server resets.
In fact, if you want, you could start your own "server reset" league within this game if you found enough support. Organize some standards, convince some people to give this league control of sector 7, Gilliam (one star system), set a game turn to start, and go.
edited by LunaMoth on 6/15/2018 |
6/19/2018
Topic:
Turns to change production
LunaMoth
|
I'm not sure if this was discussed in the past. Many people probably noticed the following text when changing the production of a structure:
"It will take X turn(s) for structure to change production."
where 'X' is a variable that depends on the structure's level. However, the actual time it takes to change any production is 1 turn. Is this intentional? How do you think the game would change if it actually took 100 minutes to change a level 10 production facility? Would there be more focused economies/monopolies?
edited by LunaMoth on 6/19/2018 |
6/20/2018
Topic:
Ship with Hanger upgrade that cannot be downgraded
LunaMoth
|
I have a ship with a hanger upgrade but the ship itself isn't supposed to have any hanger capacity. As such, I cannot downgrade the hanger upgrade. I'm not sure how it happened since I inherited this ship. |
6/24/2018
Topic:
Splitting Salvage Between Attacker and Defender
LunaMoth
|
A while back there was an idea to split the salvage value of destroyed units to both the attacker and defender.
I think an idea similar to this would be very beneficial for corporations that are attacked by raiders/other NPCs. Currently, the only way to get anything from them is to attack their bases. This leaves defender corps in ruin while the attacker corps get all of the bounty. It seems a bit unfair for those defenders who weakened the NPC forces while taking losses. If the salvage value of destroyed attacking units is split, then the defending corps will have at least something to rebuild/repair their defences.
Some ratios that might work are:
PvE: 25% to those that destroyed the unit/75% to those that lost unit--which doesn't matter to the NPC; it is not 50/50 because 50% of the salvage value might be too high of a reward.
PvP: 10% to those that destroyed the unit/90% to those that lost unit.
edited by LunaMoth on 6/24/2018 |
6/25/2018
Topic:
Splitting Salvage Between Attacker and Defender
LunaMoth
|
I don't think it would be complicated. Units are salvaged when they are destroyed--this can be checked for each battle and does not depend on the number of rounds. You could distribute the bounty according to power, size, damage dealt, etc.
I think you are suggesting zero salvage for those that lost their units. That is an option. I was basing the numbers off of the current way things work where the one who lost their units gets the full salvage value. I further divided that with 100% being the full salvage value. Taking into consideration your idea, it would be more realistic if the salvage value depended on how much a force can carry, and if there are still units alive for both sides. If there are, they could realistically both try to salvage what was lost from each unit that was lost. When you introduce realism, it becomes more complex. |
6/29/2018
Topic:
Ship with Hanger upgrade that cannot be downgraded
LunaMoth
|
I inherited the ship; it was like that when I got it. So far, for every MAK Gunship I find by myself, the default upgrade is always attack. |
7/10/2018
Topic:
Raider Gunsuits have wrong Artifacts
LunaMoth
|
According to the game guide, Armored to Varitek requires A5 Metaphysics artifacts. Raiders have found a way to use A1 Metaphysics. Maybe we should try to do the same to save some time and credits. |
8/12/2018
Topic:
What should we work on next?
LunaMoth
|
When you say "without contracts" does that mean I don't need to ask someone to accept my contract, load a transport with goods, and drop them off? If so, I like that idea. |
8/20/2018
Topic:
How Guild Bank should work
LunaMoth
|
Vulpex wrote:
The idea of giving guild members a bonus to logistics is a good idea in that it gives an incentive for folks to collaborate in guilds which is good for everyone involved.
I like this idea of collaborating to have bonus logistics--maybe something to offset overcrowding so that it is less detrimental for guild members to produce resources in the same spot. Otherwise, I imagine there would be less incentive to share your wealth with your guild mates, which would make recruiting new members difficult. To a small corp, it might just seem like you're funding the military of the guild officers. The guild structures could be used as a way to improve the logistics. But it could be complicated for guilds with corps on separate planets, systems, sectors, etc.
edited by LunaMoth on 8/20/2018 |
8/20/2018
Topic:
How Guild Bank should work
LunaMoth
|
I was thinking the added logistics would be something a guild buys in steps, rather than requiring a certain number of members. It could be 1 billion for 1%, 10 billion for the next %, etc. or something with a growing scale and a low upper limit like 10%--it would be a "maxed" guild. Having more members working together would make it easier to collect funds. Having alt accounts would not make it any easier since the efficiency of operating alts goes down as you make more of them. I don't think it should be based solely on guild ranking--that could be a different bonus.
There could also be quests that you need to go on to unlock certain guild features or percentage brackets. |
9/7/2018
Topic:
How a Capture mechanic should work
LunaMoth
|
I don't remember ground units being scaled up. It seems that any defense you make can be easily countered with an equivalent ground force. I think the only benefit of defensive structures is that they are dirt cheap. |
9/8/2018
Topic:
Combat Events
LunaMoth
|
I recently realized that bounty for combat events are based on total military power brought to all battles related to the main base/ship. I think it makes more sense to be based on damage dealt. A small corp could be fighting a raider base for several turns with a low amount of power and then a large corp could swoop in to finish it off with maybe double the power of all the battles of the small corp; i.e., they would take 2/3 of the bounty. That doesn't seem fair.
For example:
1 commando deals 120 damage to a military base. 1 commando represents 12 military power.
1 battlesuit deals 40 damage to a military base. 1 battlesuit represents 80 military power.
3 battlesuits = 20x military power of a commando.
Suppose a small corp using 10 commandos wants to kill a base with 12,000 health points.
It would take at least 10 turns to do so--5 turns to deal 6,000 damage.
Now suppose that a large corp using 150 battlesuits (dealing 6,000 damage in 1 turn) attacks the base when it is at 7,200 health points (commando turn 5), which together finishes off the base.
The commando attacked for 5 turns equating to 10*12*5 = 600 total military power and ~5% of the bounty.
The battlesuits attacked for 1 turn equating to 150*80*1 = 12,000 total military power and ~95% of the bounty.
In addition, other corps could be defending against attacking enemies but won't get any bounty since they didn't deal damage or bring military power to the main base/ship.
The tricky part is when there is multi-corp overkill. In such situations, maybe the ratio of the damages could be used. Or for battles that take more than one turn, maybe there could be precedence for those that were in the previous battle.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/8/2018 |
9/9/2018
Topic:
Bug/Inconsistency with Unit Repairs
LunaMoth
|
According to the game guide, military bases repair ground units based on the highest level military base at a rate of 0.1% per level. At level 10, a ground unit will repair an additional 1% to the standard 1% per turn. Having multiple bases in one location, I have noticed that they too repair my damaged ground units which makes the total repair higher than 2%. Looking at the pictures attached, you can see that in 1 turn, my ground unit repaired an astounding 6% hit points! My guess is that it added 1%+1% for the first military base (level 10), 1%+0.8% for the second military base (level 8), and 1%+0.8% for my third military base (level 8).
In addition, it doesn't appear to cost any more credits to repair when located at a military base compared to when not located at a military base.
I don't have multiple shipyards to check if they function the same way for ships.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/9/2018 |
9/10/2018
Topic:
Combat Events
LunaMoth
|
Vulpex wrote:
I can confirm that in overkill situations it is damage inflicted not power brought to bear that is the basis for payouts.
At the last Kaiju I was the guy with 20 lvl 10 gunsuits... equivalent to.. uh... something like 12,000 lvl 1 battlesuits. - my overall military power was about 1.2 million in that fight (the gunsuits had company) compared to about 1.5 from the other two participants but I dealt only about 17% of the damage (It was a flying kaiju... damn things are hard to aim at in a gunsuit).
The payout was unfortunately proportional to the damage, not the military power...
edited by Vulpex on 9/10/2018
That must be a special case or a bug for Kaijus--in the event it says it is based on military power. According to battle report 31672, it says gunsuits dealt 134000 damage, which you had a lot of. It is also way less than the supposed 338000 damage/military power you brought. But it is the second most damage after the modified variteks that dealt 630000 damage. The monster had 240000 hit points. The total damage taken by that monster was 997445 leaving it with -757445 hit points. Battle report 31673 might also be a factor.
For Motherships and Raiders, it is definitely based on total military power for all battles. In a number of my battles, the military power exactly matches what I brought for battles that lasted 1 turn and even for battles that lasted 3 turns with many different units.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/10/2018 |
9/10/2018
Topic:
Combat Events
LunaMoth
|
It definitely seems like it is based on military power and not damage dealt. See attachments. In the Pirate Raider battle, I brought 30000 military power, and that's what showed up in the event. In the Mothership battles, I brought 584000+300000+300000=1184000 military power, and that's what showed up in the event. |
9/11/2018
Topic:
Combat Events
LunaMoth
|
Surgicus wrote:
Luna, did you consider, like Dread mentions, the last battle report of a series, where the end of the event is triggered, that would be a Kaiju killed, a base destroyed, a mothership blown up. Then check which (and whose) units inflicted the most damage to the concerned key asset in this report, figure out the related ratios, whereas the bounty/reward is distributed and shared accordingly.
That is how I understand Dread's last reply.
Yes, I already considered that. He is just saying that bounties will only go to people who attack those special units--and not secondary units such as a Pirate Marauder. All events with Pirate Raiders and Alien Motherships are consistent for me--they base it correctly off of Total Military Power brought to the battles with the special unit. The Kaiju report is the one that doesn't make sense, which is why I suggested it is a bug. Is no one looking at the pictures? I have plenty more.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/11/2018 |
9/11/2018
Topic:
Bug/Inconsistency with Unit Repairs
LunaMoth
|
Ships appear to repair 6% with a level 10 Shipyard. So it is probably the case for the Military Base and therefore, the repairs don't stack--as it should be. |
9/12/2018
Topic:
What is the best & comfortable business model?
LunaMoth
|
Constantly tweaking things it until it is satisfactory doesn't seem like an effective way to do things. I think focus should be placed on that other forum "What should we work on next?" We can revisit "balance" later with a more effective overhaul of the system rather than a tweak and seeing what happens. Lay down the limits (probably storage limits) and then work from there.
For example, you might have a maximum limit on total credits a guild bank can have.
Then based on that you can set a limit to the total credits an individual corporation can possibly have.
Based on that, you can set a hard limit on the amount of credits a single corporation can earn in a single turn; perhaps to limit an individual corporation's military size to some limit.
From that you can set prices for products and scale (not necessarily linearly) logistics accordingly so it becomes more and more impossible to reach that upper limit no matter what bonuses are present.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/12/2018 |