So What if?

So what if. you couldnt destroy a planet either by orbital bombing or landing troops and then lifting all the population?
Instead you occupy a planet, for a limited time frame, after that time frame the planet would revert to original owner.
So what would be the point of occupying a planet? well first of all you get to use it like you own, with a small difference, you cant destroy original owners buildings.It is exempt from corruption so wont add to you corruption total for organics, or it wont add to you total planet cap for toasters. For your efforts you gain all benifits of planet any science points, income or the ability to remove the resi from the surface.

Not rendering orbital bombing useless here it would have to change slightly to adapt, but No one could ever be destroyed and kicked out of the game. True in real life its different but this is a game, and you loose everything here and you probaly move onto a different game. This method you kind of sulk for a given period whilst planet is in enemy hands, but once occupation period is over you get it back, it hasnt destroyed you game and people are more likely to keep playing

While this ia not an inherently bad suggestion, I don’t believe that this fits the current game design and it would heavily favour extremely rapid early game expansion.

Edit: To me this game has some of the same spice that a game like Rust and to a degree EVE does, if you can’t shape borders then what is the point? Play house?

1 Like

The question that needs to be answered is…How long do the Devs expect this galaxy to last.
If it is 6 months or less then probaly not worth it, but if it is a year or so then, Having non destroyable planets is good thing. The issue comes is that currently it has a small player base and you want to keep that player base active, now destroying a players hard work over the last few months so they can be totally kicked out of the game by destroying every planet they own means they give up on the game. So the game has 2000 players and only 50 active because so many got blasted out of the game. At which point the game is lost because of lack of players

Seems strange to me that games like EVE, Rust, Stronghold Kingdoms, and more do just fine, using your logic that is.

This game is clearly not for everyone, perhaps the devs should make their intentions clear, both on the Steam page and in a blog post.

I know for sure that without the danger of losing weeks if not months of progress then this game becomes nothing but Farmville to me.

Besides, there are already plans to make resetting less horrible.

EVE and the likes have a massive player base that makes them commericially viable, players come and go. Currently this game doesnt have that player base, so the idea is to keep what player base the game does have as active as possible with as few as possible quitting…

There could always be the option of Hardcore and Soft core galaxies, but i was attempting to make it as simple in terms of programing as possible. But This would be classified as a Hardcore galaxy, once you are dead you are dead, game over. The Softcore version is what i am suggesting, it would be nice to have a hardcore and softcore galaxy to choose from, be interesting which is most popular.

Then there is also the strategic problem of if you WANT someone’s base out of your zone of influence. For example, someone snuck in a major colonization effort into the middle of your territory and built a massive shipyard and is using that to raid your surrounding bases. You want it gone. Not captured temporarily but for the sake of your territorial security you want it gone. How would you be able to do that if you can’t trash the place?

Not being allowed to kill bases can have a very big long term strategic effect on a game, especially if it forces you to turn defensive due to a threat behind the lines.

3 Likes

One more thing, I think it should be acceptable to lose some players as the galaxy progresses as long as the playerbase does not drop too hard.

Have a look at this, the player activity has remained somewhat stable during the course of this galaxy: https://steamcharts.com/app/552600

What you suggest, is perhaps one of the reason why i might be tempted to argue for less planets, would perhaps even argue that a planet cant just be abandoned but would rather have to be deconstructed. Much of this depends on a future update where they were suggesting the ability to have more planets but they would be under the control of a commander rather than current method of direct control. 20 planet cap as perm planets would make you consider where you put them rather than just random places. but then the abilty have a good few planet where you have a commander in control. Those planets would be perhaps destroyable

I’ll just make one of my 20 planets a harassment planet specifically positioned and designed to harass my neigbours’ shipping lines, that should make them despise the system quite fast.

i did look, does seem a downward trend in the last week or so, quite a sharp fall. but wouldnt take that as a trend until it has more data. New year and all peole get involved in other stuff and then might come back

You should also take into account the TERRIBLE Christmas update, but apart from that it had been quite stable.

Edit: besides, a sharp decline would surely not be from losing planets, too many players at once would suggest something else.

1 Like

There is always that possibilty, but the original suggestion was based on a lot being added to the game over time, i just didnt add it to original post as it would just be to long winded that no one would read.
One of the required additions to the game would be in game alliances/clans, the ability to spawn close to Alliance members. The advent of the ability of one Alliance being able to declare war on another, with a diplomatic function, not just mouthing off on discord or ingame chat, but a physical decloration. Then of course the ability to “win” the war. Winning by ocuppying a given percentage or number of the Enemy planets, then of course getting a reward for being a winner of the war.

As i said to long to post in one forum post.

Half of the game never post here, same old names as a rule about 20 or 30 regulars. Some wont post they will just leave, without saying why

Most players don’t care much for forums, you will see some different names in the Steam community posts though.

I’ve seen this idea floating around in a few posts, but it sounds terrible to me. What would you do with a planet that you captured but could only control for a short time? There would be no point in building on it because you are just going to lose the planet to the timer. Using it as a temporary space station could be ok, but likely wouldn’t be enough to motivate an attack. The small resources you would gain while you controlled the planet likely wouldn’t be worth much either (unless the planet had a large stockpile to raid when you first took it over). I would also have some concerns about not being able to drive people out of your territory. You get into a situation where whoever claims a planet first keeps it forever (unless you want to dedicate an army to constantly conquering it over and over).

Do you know of any other good motivations to attack if this were how the game worked?

4 Likes

That i believe is a shame, as its the best way to shape the game. Proposal, followed by counter proposal, because original idea has holes in that were not seen by original poster

This is how it is for most games.

Edit: It has its pros and cons, less people means less clutter and noise, but also that a smaller part of the community is represented.

As you would be able to recieve the income the planet generated and any resources, plus any science produced. Its a reasonable incentive.
The ability to drive someone out is always always a powerful motive for destroying a planet, but is also a good way to drive someone out of the game.
In a previous reply i suggested having a lower maximum planet count, so perhaps around 20. But there was a suggestion for in a future update that we could have planets that were “available” to us but not under our direct control but under the control of an AI commander working on our behalf, this could make up the shortfall in our planet numbers

I saw a suggestion somewhere that focused on making fully capturing a planet harder but in turn having a separate occupation option, this along with the possible introduction of a vassal system would make losing a war less detrimental.

Again is the possibility of modify what i have suggested, to make it kind of as it is to make a planet a Vassal planet for a given amount of time. But make it way much harder to take it on a forever basis, almost close to impossible unless a serious amount of effort was put in. But yes the Idea of losing a war and it being less detrimental would be my aim.

But then ultimately i would be looking at wars being part of an alliance effort, with maybe as stated previously condition being set out for victory and a reward for those who are the winners. That reward could be in the form of some sort of points gain, which would give the alliance a benifit as a whole. So perhaps an alliance tech tree, with tech not available to the indivdual example would be perhaps reduced fuel consumption tech, reducing fuel usage by 2% per level, Or a boast to all alliance members for mining for a week