Capitals Redux: A new system in place of current corruption, that battles multiple issues

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.

2 Likes

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?

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

Capitals aren’t suppose to be producible buildings for the simple reason, if you can produce it, then there is no reason to take it. The building is just a representative feature of the Capital system. You aren’t taking a building, but the heart of someone else’s culture.

The building is a mechanical representation of that heart, of that culture, and of bonuses of taking It.

Invulnerability is not to stop people from destroying them, its to stop people from dismantling them. Capitals are to cause tension between people, because there are only so many of them in the galaxy, thus you have to fight and take them from others.

A lot of what you are saying here is outside of that box, and a lot of what you are saying here is your own distaste for the rules and mechanics the actual developers are using, the ones I am trying to stay within some bounds of the idea.

Again, you don’t want a glass ceiling, but we already have one. There isn’t a way around it, regardless of you feel, and IDA has said there isn’t a way around it. We all have to jump through hoops until we hit our personal max, or until we hit what the server can handle. Without something slowing us down to some degree, A2 will happen again, and we don’t want that. This isn’t real life, but a game, and one with limitations, thus we have to have limitations. This system is a great balance between hardlimits, softlimts, and walls. You can take as much as you can hold, and as much as you can eventually research, but it takes awhile, and is a slow process so the servers don’t suffer.

Fleets work exactly like that now, I just reiterated that bit over, so yeah, again you are saying what you are saying to a core system.

I can agree that Research Could have diminishing returns, but its not a true cap, you can keep own research capitals, you just move the threshold, and keep moving it. This system is to help gate people, because we have real issues with people having too much RP, and I am not convinced diminishing returns is going to stop some people from doing what they do.

Taxation, again, you are basically attacking things I have no power over, and was trying to build the system around.

Scanner, I can see something allowing you to hide it, but I used the scanners inner range, because it seemed the easiest thing to use right now, and requires a significant early investment for new players to acquire territory.

The Orbital Miner, I thought about putting them anywhere, which you could probably do, without issue, however they are an object, so they count as a fleet. This means they will be counted by the server. So if we allow them to be put anyone, the first thing that is going to happen, is that every single planet as far as the eye can see will be mined. Yes, this will cause more tension, but it will lag out the server if everyone has like 200 Orbital Miners everywhere around them.

For what Warmonger said, I will reply with what I said:

The issue is alts, and has nothing to do with the system itself. Right now abuse is happening in this server, you aren’t going to get away from it until IDA takes measures to curtail it, stop it, or embrace it in a way that helps to mitigate it.

Overall you poked at a lot of stuff that either, I personally have no control over, that are limits based on technology IRL, or mechanics already being used. Also, you didn’t mention anything you liked, and you had some actual input at one time about some of this, so some of your own ideas were amalgamated into this.

Syntis have Capitals based on the research required to increase their cap. All races could implement this and have the repeating tech to add 5 planets… This in addition to distance based penalties. The penalty should be a mix of production, financial and happines penalties. The happiness penalty would be call corruption, a global corruption level may still exist but is lessened based on alliance level…

The penalty is set per distance from a captured homeworld… These planets are designated as Core worlds the entirity of the game.

Borders idea is genius

Orbital mining is 100% must. Higher tier ships must also be more expensive. Any deep space platform should also be expensive…

I completely agree with this however your abuse in the rest of the post does now portray you in a good light… Ideas are welcomed from all players.

1 Like

Simple change to make this palatable. Capital buildings are destroyed in any invasion that results in victory by the invaders. And capitals are lost in any gifting of a world with one on it. Also curtails player swaps for dual pops early game.

Capitals become expensive to build and the number you can have is based on tech tree research. Hiding tech behind gates in the tree as well would be good too.

Been discussed often.

  1. I can get behind that gifting converts a planet to a normal one.

  2. If the Capital is destroyed it negates the whole system, like I said above, you can’t build them, there is a finite amount of them in galaxy. They are there to increase tension in the game and a finite resource.

Edit: Without the tension, it doesn’t totally invalidate the idea, however what it does, is removes much needed tension that the game needs.