| Author |
Upgrading buildings = same as scrapping? |
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
|  Posted: 2010-10-02 22:54
increasing hp will give more pres, then making bombs do more damage to compensate has pros and cons
pros: more pres from bombing and building
cons: more bomb damage leads to quicker inf killing and pop killing by bombs, when fixing planets you can lose even more pres
_________________
|
Point Of No Return
Chief Marshal
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 24, 2007
Posts: 78
| Posted: 2010-10-02 23:29
As one of the top builder's in DS I see that after all the changes to the building schemes and the rebuildings of a heck of alot of planets and systems that the best way to deal with AI and unskilled built planets is to, 1) let them fail and get caped or turn yellow rogue. Step 2) bomb it clean leave the inf until last thus bombing points. Step 3) rebuild "with out" useing the upgrade option this seems to be the best and viable way to keep people interested in spending time playing as an enginier in DS.
_________________
|
Fatal Rocko Willis
Fleet Admiral
Fatal Squadron
Joined: March 01, 2003
Posts: 1336
From: Kentucky
| Posted: 2010-10-03 00:24
I do not upgrade... unless there is absolutly no other way... its worth more to scratch build (that is build the level building you need from scratch).
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2010-10-03 00:32
Little wonder why I don't bother with building planets. The tedium and unprofitability of it all.
I did construction just to get the badge and that was that... And even then I'd rather build supp plats.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2010-10-03 04:37 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2010-10-03 00:37
I thought that it's extremely hard to lose pres nowaday. Suddenly this topic hints legal one. Nice to know!
This sounds crazy, but the best way to earn pres is to build many planets with mantles and factories, with 4 bomb I and 1 dico, 70 tech, 1 sensor. When someone find out the planets are weak, one'll start to capture them. Then a big battle occur and we can farm prestige via combat. 1 week freely spawning new ships thanks to various mines and factories and 1 hour earning tons of combat prestige and some hours bombing and rebuilding at leisure. Consider this compare with long time no action in home server.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-10-03 03:57
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-03 00:24, Fatal Rocko Willis wrote:
I do not upgrade... unless there is absolutly no other way... its worth more to scratch build (that is build the level building you need from scratch).
|
|
But...isn't that exactly WHY it is an issue? I'm not sure exactly what upgrading was meant to accomplish, if it wasn't to avoid the pres loss for building properly.....maybe I am missing something...?
_________________
bucket link
|
Lonectzn
Fleet Admiral
Joined: January 06, 2005
Posts: 202
| Posted: 2010-10-03 05:27
I too feel that the current system puts too much of the cost on the the player trying to do the right thing. There is however a simple way to shift the burden off them.
Just make build prestige constant across all the buildings. A single amount, which is awarded to whoever finishes (or starts, depending on ease of implementation) the building. This way, you lose the same amount of prestige for scrapping a lab as you gain for adding the desperately needed barracks. It doesn't come without its own drawbacks, but it is comparatively simple and reliable, and successfully avoids planet fixers being docked for their work. It doesn't reward them for improving the planet, however 'improved' is such a subjective view that I don't see it being feasible to try.
Ideally, to discourage abuse some reduction in the spread of build times would be preferred. Not making everything the same, just making the quick things take longer, and the longer ones somewhat less. In any case, I've felt for a while there is too great a difference between the quick and slow buildings. It's hard to balance when build times vary by such orders of magnitude.
Pros
- Stops planet fixers being docked prestige
- Eliminates buiding bias (currently prestige favours bigger buildings, regardless of usefulness, over much more important but quickly constucted buildings like barracks)
- Is simple
Cons
- Still doesn't reward high quality building (would love to hear ideas on how to do it though)
- Makes pres farming through building somewhat quicker (read: 31 mines and a colony for your ultimate craptacular pres farm). Reducing the spread in build times would resolve this.
- Shared building doesn't share the prestige as only one will be rewarded (could the grouping system solve this anyway?)
Well, there you go. It's a ?!^%*%!$ty problem, and for a ?!^%*%!$ty problem you will often find the solutions tend to smell. But it's a pretty quick fix in the grand scheme of things. The hardest part is figuring out when the pres is handed out, and how much to give. I'm hoping the new planet system might address this anyway, but in the meantime you can't ask for much more.
I strongly feel we need to ensure players doing, or trying to do the right thing are not punished. While the prestige cost is small compared to how much we tend to have, the perception of losing prestige I feel results in unhappy players and planets that no-one will touch ( at least, with anything other than a rack of nukes). The benefits are well worth the costs.
[ This Message was edited by: Lonectzn on 2010-10-03 05:29 ]
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-10-03 07:39
I don't see that as a better system than one that deconstructs the building, adds the resources back to the planet, awards the player for construction (um, demolition IS a BIG part of construction in many cases), and then the spot is open for a new building.
It avoids scrapping by engineers.
It punishes scrappers for spiteful scrapping.
It still requires a player to both unbuild and build a structure.
It would recycle the resources back into the planetary pool, very useful for scenario server.
The deconstruction, or demolition I guess is a better term, could take a bit longer to do, and could pay a little less in prestige, and do so logically. It takes longer to demolish something, and then prepare the ground for a new construction to be built atop it. Demolition generally does not pay as well as new construction in the real world either. Well, at least not were I live. If it did, I'd be a happy guy. Its fun demolishing things.
But I digress. Sorry.
_________________
bucket link
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
