Oh okay, I understand. Thinking of it more, these changes really mesh together and need each other. To have as many worlds as you speak of would be a big step up, along with having visible borders and orbital miners. Juggling planets right now as either high pop or mining is a chore. Of course we still might choose to create mining worlds, but some planets are impossible to colonize (although they have big resource reserves) and I’d really love to just send out ships and strip mine everything I see.
Orbital mining also creates a lot of added tension, besides having to take other people’s homeworlds.
So you have two things with this system that help create situations where players HAVE TO INTERACT. Also this system allows long term players be able to fight multiple people better, without being to OP. There are a lot of positives here.
the whole thing is bullshit. There is no point to make anything new while current thing works well enough. There are a lot of stuff to do before even have experiment with such a nonsence. the first thing the game needs is total rebalance of ships and weapons as well as making battles more complicate (stupid wall to wall is a shame).
Its not Bullshit its an idea just as valid as any of yours old chap.
If folks myself included thought it was “Working well” we’d not waste time typing to suggest other things.
But you are right there is a bunch to do that’s more urgent, and I personally agree that right after alliances a look again at the awful ship to ship combat mechanics is a must do.
I see you are back to calling people’s opinions bullshit.
There is no reason not to offer up new ideas, especially ones so well thought out.
A few odd situations I forsee however and that is multiple sensors in the same solar owned by different players. I also have other comments/concerns which are really more about the details than the actual system so I wont comment as that would just add spam to the thread.
Thank you for your reply though, and I don’t mind answering anything you have to ask.
As far as multiple sensors in the same system, that is a very very corner case, and I would say that unless there are even sensors in the area, it defaults to the one that has the most sensors. If somehow its equal, and they are near a border, the border could extend to that system. If you have more than the person in that area, you could start a new bubble. It would probably look similar to what Stellaris does.
So a player who loses a capital is done essentially and alts can be used to gift/farm them to power player/core accounts. Ripe for abuse.
Mankind is the weakest race and therefore needs a boost, not a downgrade. Our special ability to instantly put out a ship is useless if we can’t save up the $$ while trying to keep up with the guys next to us.
The current system we have right now can be, and is abused.
No matter what system is in place gifting can be abused. Its not the system, but alts in general.
Also, you can designate a capital if you don’t have any left, however, you won’t have much RP, and will need to take back one to really progress.
I am not sure what that has to do with the above system.
Everyone already knows all the races need re balancing in general.
Lol I said I didnt think it was worth commenting at this time and you asked me to comment anyway.
LOL I get you, but yeah, we need a re balance on everything, honestly.
Uhh rebalance… I still cringe at that word… Whats it been 5 years now?
5 years for what?
About 1 year ago the balance in the game was WAY better than it is now.
We had varied flagship levels, instead of everyone having the same, we had better placement, we didn’t have bane weapons, we didn’t have sabers, all of the special abilities weren’t all on corvettes, etc etc etc…
They have added and changed so much without course correcting at all.
I’m guessing this was the Grand Rebalance from Vega Conflict. Generally regarded as one of the worst moves ever made by a game developer. Somewhat similar to the “balance” we seen here. The easiest way to balance is to reduce the number of variables to nearly 0.
I am not going to argue that the game is balanced, but while mankind may never win outright, mankind also looses the least in any defeat. Balance for us would come in our ability to regenerate and hitting softer targets, such as mine layers and every incarnation of the corvette, as our ships should all be cheaper as well as easier to produce…
Anyway, we are so far off topic… I would like some form of territory.
There’s a lot of good ideas in here but is there a world in which corruption is left as it and what’s changed is the number of planets that can be colonized?
It occurs to me that if we had a way to see in, and scan around, a system (starbase without colony), and there were fewer planets that you could chose from. You’d increase the size of an empire and thereby increase the number of players you’d come into conflict with.
I like the concept of a Hw being a capital, sort of makes sense. Not needed right now though.
The foundation is flawed. Capitals are a physical place representing a governance. The governance is not self-funded within the physical place of that capital. You cannot have the booming advantages outlined without booming costs ongoing and even greater costs upfront. Because the capital relies on the funds and resources of governed subjects, capitals cannot precede their subjects without outrageous cost from elsewhere.
Invulnerabilities are inexcusable. The seedship concept of ‘invulnerability’ hinged on it fleeing before destruction. Can a capital flee? If I choose to destroy something I conquer, there should be a time, labor and material cost and no glass wall.
What’s to stop the production of a new capital?Capitals would likely be the heads of economic and logistic gameplay. Without it we penalize players specializing in planetary building. One of the greatest structures is off limits for them to build, perfect and sell?
Implicit here is the notion that I could outnumber, outgun, outsmart and altogether overpower a capital’s owner but must stand back because a glass wall of technicality dictates my empire has yet to achieve sufficient tech to do what it just did.
Again, this is a form of invulnerability and it stems again from a perspective of capitals holding a one-time cost and research pre-requisite rather than an ongoing expense.
The only obstacles that should halt production are unemployment, rioting, sabotage, battle damage, power outage, resource depletion, spatial capacity or a direct order from the governing entity. Maintenance costs, construction costs and manpower should be the usual limiters to ship production.
There should be no cap on research but instead diminishing returns. Eventually you just have too many minds thinking up the same new thoughts simultaneously.
Taxation thus far in its entirety boggles the brain. Empires get their money from the people? No, people get their money from the government printing the money. We have yet to meet that maker of the credit.
Anyway, ECs should simply suffer diminishing returns as well or (as I’d prefer to complicate this more accurately) only contribute to an allotted sum of the population and that allottment only in proportion to another measure: how many hours are worked, slept, entertained. Yes, how can these people be so heavily entertained and still be working diligently? Did they freeze time long enough to visit all thirty of those ECs?
I don’t like not having direct control over the radius but that can be debated later as this is a great start; however, there should be tech available to hide the scanner’s field if a player doesn’t wish his presence known.
Why? That sounds much more a matter of diplomacy.
Half of the game I want isn’t even in this framework yet. Yes, we must make new extensions and, no, current things aren’t working well enough.
True. Capitals need to be player-built investments and not free fountains of youth.
We need more gameplay content to allow styles in which a capital is not only unnecessary but plausibly detrimental to the empire.