| Author |
Planet clusters |
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
|  Posted: 2011-02-02 05:28
I think this is a bit of common sense, but Im going to throw it out just incase no one has considered it.
Since planetary defense range is so narrow, planetary clusters have lost ALOT of their value. There isn't a while lot that a cluster benefits from now since there isn't this 2kgu damage radius.
So, why have clusters? Should they be strategically important or should they not be? I pose this question.
Should they actually be intended to be important, then I suggest the following:
Planets THEMSELVES can contribute to control point value. That is, if you have a planet thats in orbit around another object, all the objects in that group get a control point boost. This can be modified by planet type. This means that clusters of planets take much much longer to capture.
For example, you have a Terran surrounded by an Arid and a Barren. They all get the same bonus. The bonus is significant enough that a literal fleet is needed to budge the control point value. I would suggest that:
1 Barren = 1 ship
1 Arid/Ice = 2 ships
1 Water = 3 ships
And 1 Terran = 4 ships.
This means with infantry on top of it all, a barren in cluster (such as Paul, lets use paul as an example).
Paul is a Terran surrounded by two waters and an arid.
That means that the entire cluster, when controled by one faction, is effectively the same as 12 ships needed to orbit just to break even on one of them. Not including infantry, which is the equivlent of another 3 ships. So its about 15 ships needed to take that cluster.
Sounds like alot? It should. Bombing planets, disabling planets, it should be easy enough. But actually capturing them?
Lone planets should be simple captures. Clusters should be royal pains in the ass. Some might say thats too much, but put it like this:
Capturing one planet in a cluster puts it in your favor. This is the ticket. Its a double edged sword. You capture a water in the Paul cluster and its like having three ships affecting all the planets in the cluster. That means clusters are hard to break into, but if you get a foothold the cluster becomes much more manageable. This is the benefit, and the downfall, and the significance of cluster planets.
However, if we have decided that cluster planets are unimportant, then disregard this entire post and leave it as it is.
-Ent
_________________
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2011-02-02 06:42
Quote:
|
Planets THEMSELVES can contribute to control point value.
|
|
+1 to planetary propaganda. Go nonviolence! 
But doesn't that mean that planets in a partially captured cluster are hard to control and maintain? If yes, WOOHOO!
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Tommas [ USF HunnyBunny ]
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: February 04, 2006
Posts: 581
From: Norway
| Posted: 2011-02-02 09:26
Im all in for making influence in cluster better, or make the damage area of planets longer.
[ This Message was edited by: Tommas [ USF HunnyBunny ] on 2011-02-02 09:27 ]
_________________
|
Scorched Soul[+R]
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: November 14, 2005
Posts: 378
From: USA, NJ, Princeton
| Posted: 2011-02-02 12:02
I am all in favor of this however I think it would make more sense to have planets augment the times of captures but not the requirements. That way you can still break into a cluster like paul with less than 15 ships in a fleet which honestly doesnt happen all that often. On the other hand you can cap the planet with say 4 people it will just take much longer than it would otherwise.
The other bonus of this is that you wont have planets capping other planets or lowering their control or all sorts of other unfavorable planetary interactions.
Think of it this way you have a terran at the center of a cluster with 2 arids around it. If group B took the terran from group A but not the arids and then everyone left then the terran with 4 control points would start the cap the 2 arids while the 2 arids with a combined 4 control points would then start capping the terran at the same rate. The control for all the planets would evenutaly hit 0 and then what? do all the planets revolt or does who ever arrives first just get all of the planets instantly?
_________________
![Email Scorched Soul[+R]](http://www1.palestar.com/gamecq/phpBB/images/email.gif)
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-02-02 16:14
Quote:
|
Planets THEMSELVES can contribute to control point value.
+1 to planetary propaganda. Go nonviolence!
But doesn't that mean that planets in a partially captured cluster are hard to control and maintain? If yes, WOOHOO!
|
|
Absolutely. In itself planets influence other planets just like orbiting ships do.
It means a Terran planet acts as if it has four ships, all orbiting other planets in that cluster at once. Even if they were barrens, it would still break even if it had 32 inf. So player intervention is still required.
But it makes for tactical thought. "I can capture the middle planet, and the other three planets will be affected the most, or I can start on the outside where its safer and eventually force the middle planet to cap on its own?"
It really removes planet camping in clusters too at this point. Otherwise, if you capture for example the planets around Paul, Paul is only worth seven ships. All it would take is capturing two of the planets in the cluster and control starts dropping. This means that cluster planets are very easy to defend from random attacks. This also means that if the enemy gets a foothold, you're in trouble. If they cap half the planets, you better work fast.
I also think planet clusters deserve one more thing to make them really worthwhile.
All planets in the cluster's PD% bonus is added together.
Thats right. If you have four planets in a cluster with 40% PD, every planet in the cluster is added together and they all have 160% PD. This makes it very difficult to try to ninja a single planet to gain a foothold, or disable it quickly.
Clusters should be important, because I think in a future Darkspace we will have much more to fight planets over for and clusters have traditionally been the most important planets.
Quote:
| Posted: 2011-02-02 09:26
Im all in for making influence in cluster better, or make the damage area of planets longer.
[ This Message was edited by: Tommas [ USF HunnyBunny ] on 2011-02-02
|
|
I agree with this 100%. One or the other. I also would support a dictor range extention to 1.5kgu.
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-02 12:02, Scorched Soul[+R] wrote:
I am all in favor of this however I think it would make more sense to have planets augment the times of captures but not the requirements. That way you can still break into a cluster like paul with less than 15 ships in a fleet which honestly doesnt happen all that often. On the other hand you can cap the planet with say 4 people it will just take much longer than it would otherwise.
The other bonus of this is that you wont have planets capping other planets or lowering their control or all sorts of other unfavorable planetary interactions.
Think of it this way you have a terran at the center of a cluster with 2 arids around it. If group B took the terran from group A but not the arids and then everyone left then the terran with 4 control points would start the cap the 2 arids while the 2 arids with a combined 4 control points would then start capping the terran at the same rate. The control for all the planets would evenutaly hit 0 and then what? do all the planets revolt or does who ever arrives first just get all of the planets instantly?
|
|
I thought about this, but then decided that infact it could be a great gameplay mechanic. Read above to see what I mean.
I think the price of getting into a cluster is steep, and if all we do is extend the time it takes it just makes it easier for smaller fleets to capture planets. Which I understand, but the main thing I always hear about is how planets are weak. This is one aspect that makes them much, much stronger (if you read above in this post).
I think if planets in a cluster influence themselves and act as "one planet" then it gives them the power to be very strong indeed. It makes loner planets vulnerable still, but I think they should be.
In this idea, it would also require heavily looking at how maps are designed. Lone planets should never be more than Barren, Arid, or Ice. Clusters would have to be balanced heavily so it doesn't make it too easy to capture a cluster (such as a Terran surrounded by nothing but barrens, thats a recipe for disaster), or too hard (A Terran surrounded by Terrans).
I think big fleets should be required to take clusters because well.. heres my overall perspective. I just want to lay it out here now and you can see why I suggest things like this.
The MV is a persistent universe that lacks alot of the importance that most persistent servers that exist in other MMOs.
In other MMOs, progress matters alot. Our form of progression is capturing planets, but planets in themselves are not value able and are easily taken. They switch sides fast and they're basically just beacons for combat. I don't like this.
I like Darkspace's actiony feel, but it needs depth to hold players, and holding territory should matter. It should not be acceptable that a faction be content (such as luth) to only stick to Eri and that taking planets in other systems is not only pointless but is only done for giggles, or to get the badges.
I love combat, but the mistake I think being made is that the game is losing focus on the one thing that could best drive it - planets. They are worth nothing to fight over and they dont have enough strength. So I think of ways to make them strong while introducing new, strategic tactical thought that is very lacking in the game.
Whats better? Two fleets just hitting spacebar in space, or leading a fleet, and following in one, working as a seamless team to try and take on a monumental fight over a cluster that will take days to achieve, where battle lines are drawn and forced (see other ideas of mine where players can only enter enemy systems if they own the current system they're in, aka, linear progression) so as to make people fight for a bigger reason than just for the sake of fighting.
Take for example the picture of a Darkspace where you fight over planets because you really need them, they're your baby. Where conquering a faction is an actual goal rather than just something you do for fun. I think DS should act more like the persistent universe it sells itself to be rather than a sandbox.
And that the rewards can be more than prestige. They can be for unlocking special ships you can only spawn from that shipyard (new ships), or enhancements that are awarded and are unique and interesting. The possibilities are there.
Right now, the game has gone stale because we have tried forever to get the right recipie. Well here it is. Its not just combat. You want to fight for a REASON. A CAUSE. You want to jump into the MV and really give a damn. And when you do that then you make the game worth playing every day. Instead of the battle of Fargo Rock being a joke, the battle of Fargo Rock is an ICC fleet defending one of the jewels of the Tau Ceti system, capable of spawning special Marshal and Chief Marshal ranked ships that have unique layouts. Thats incentive right there.
I envision that Darksapce, and it would take alot of work. But going down this path of constantly trying to upsell combat isn't growing the game, but at least its not dwindling. So thats good. So use this time to make the game have some depth to it, so that combat and depth combined makes for a truly extraordinary game that attracts people and keeps them too.
You just can't tell me that doesnt sound amazing.
-Ent
_________________
|
Scorched Soul[+R]
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: November 14, 2005
Posts: 378
From: USA, NJ, Princeton
| Posted: 2011-02-02 16:42
You have numerous good points but my issue is that getting people organized is a major issue in this game. With the current comman structure (nill) the only time people help out with a plan is when they think it is in their best intrest or they feel like it. People have no real incentive to listen to someones plan and then stick to it. Lets say you actualy get 15 people together in a organized fashion and go out and cap a planet in the paul cluster. Chances are by that point who ever was defending your planet has been beaten back to the point where they move in another direction looking for an easier kill. once this occures its just 15 people sitting around a planet armed to the teeth looking for the next battle which doesnt show up. The people slowly get bored and disperse. You have now capped one planet and get to watch it go down the drain as the other 11 or so ships worth of planets recap the planet you just took. You are now exactly where you started.
You can make capping clusters as difficult and arduous as you like for small fleets as long as it is still possible which under the system you are suggesting it is not. as an addition we need some sort of effective command structure that operates on something more than the most charismatic and least dumb person spits out a bright idea that everyone jumps on untill they are tired of it.
_________________
|
Sops
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 07, 2004
Posts: 490
| Posted: 2011-02-02 16:56
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-02 16:42, Scorched Soul[+R] wrote:
You can make capping clusters as difficult and arduous as you like for small fleets as long as it is still possible |
|
This was my concern as well.
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-02-02 16:57
[quote]
On 2011-02-02 16:42, Scorched Soul[+R] wrote:
You have numerous good points but my issue is that getting people organized is a major issue in this game. With the current comman structure (nill) the only time people help out with a plan is when they think it is in their best intrest or they feel like it. People have no real incentive to listen to someones plan and then stick to it. Lets say you actualy get 15 people together in a organized fashion and go out and cap a planet in the paul cluster. Chances are by that point who ever was defending your planet has been beaten back to the point where they move in another direction looking for an easier kill. once this occures its just 15 people sitting around a planet armed to the teeth looking for the next battle which doesnt show up. The people slowly get bored and disperse. You have now capped one planet and get to watch it go down the drain as the other 11 or so ships worth of planets recap the planet you just took. You are now exactly where you started.
You can make capping clusters as difficult and arduous as you like for small fleets as long as it is still possible which under the system you are suggesting it is not. as an addition we need some sort of effective command structure that operates on something more than the most charismatic and least dumb person spits out a bright idea that everyone jumps on untill they are tired of it.
[/quote
You make excellent points so I will address them.
First of all, I agree with your assement that yes, it discourages combat the moment that fifteen man fleet breaks through.
And yes for gods sake we do need a command structure badly.
However, the only thing this system really, effectively does is make clusters valuable because small fleets can't capture planets by just orbiting. Ah heres the thing. Remember when I said about disabling planets being easy?
See another thing that goes missing in the MV is bombing. People just dont do it much.
What a smaller fleet of say five people can do, is organize a bombing run.
Even with staggeringly high PD%, with no actual PD most bombs will hit, and several bombers throwing several hundred bombs a planet WILL disable it by taking the population out.
Population goes out, planet gets disabled.
There can be one additional mechanic that lets small fleets have a chance. That is, disabling planets makes them lose their point value.
So what would the definiton of disabling a planet be? Forcing it to revolt? Nah, too difficult.
I think it should be that if a planet is no contributing +PD% of at least 10%, then it effectivelly does not influence the other planets in the cluster. It makes sense.
Logically, a planet with no defenses cannot defend other planets, but other planets can still defend it right? So how does this all work?
It means, by disabling planets you remove their ability to influence one another. Its another tactical part of the game.
Dont have enough players to orbit a planet and capture it? Then bomb it, disable it, and move on.
Every planet you disable makes the next one easier to capture, until the point comes that no planet has any influence - thus, a smaller fleet THEN can capture a planet.
But this is also, a double edged sword. It still has no influence, so you have to build that planet up while keeping the other planets offline. Not always an easy task, but possible, especially with PSMs, or cloaking for Kluth or long range carrier swarms for UGTO. The possibilities are there.
The point is, there can be different situations for different problems. Instead of the mentality of just one way to capture a planet, you think of new, interesting, tactical, and strategic balanced ways that something can be achieved.
In the end you get a richer experience because the answer to every problem isnt just "Throw more players at it." It makes people approach a problem a bit more seriously, and critically. And thats not such a bad element to add into the game.
-Ent
_________________
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2011-02-02 17:24
Arid should have more control than Water planets, you can import water but can't import land.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2011-02-02 18:35
Planets already have an order, which you can see in their resource caps:
- Home Planets: 500,000
- Terran: 300,000
- Arid: 200,000
- Ocean: 150,000
- Ice: 100,000
- Barren: 50,000
Could just give them a "ship" bonus based on some multiple of the above - ie, one point per 100k resources.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Deth *CO2*
Chief Marshal
Army Of Darkness
Joined: March 22, 2010
Posts: 193
| Posted: 2011-02-02 18:39
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-02 18:35, Shigernafy wrote:
Planets already have an order, which you can see in their resource caps:
- Home Planets: 500,000
- Terran: 300,000
- Arid: 200,000
- Ocean: 150,000
- Ice: 100,000
- Barren: 50,000
Could just give them a "ship" bonus based on some multiple of the above - ie, one point per 100k resources.
|
|
i Belive its
- Home Planets: 1,000,000
- Terran: 600,000
- Arid: 400,000
- Ocean: 300,000
- Ice: 200,000
- Barren: 100,000
Unless they changed it again... If so i am DEEPLY Sorry
[ This Message was edited by: Jade DarkWolf on 2011-02-02 18:40 ]
_________________
|
Cory_O
Grand Admiral
Joined: July 15, 2010
Posts: 104
| Posted: 2011-02-02 19:00
There is one big flaw to this system that hasn't been mentioned yet. Badges... If it takes "days" to capture a cluster then that means the people who started the capping will not be there to finish it, and therefore will not recieve a planet cap point. Meaning that until people have played for (assuming they constantly capped planets and never slept ate or did anything else) literally years to get the planet capped badges. These badges are somewhat necesarry for higher level ships. By somewhat i mean very.
I like this idea, planets are what made me get into dark space. I quit playing for a little while and come back and now planets are an absolute joke. My pride and joy defence cluster in sol (saturns moons) is now worthless, They no longer support eachother as I orignally built them to do (when the servers "merged"), because no planet can reach any other planet with its weapons. With your system they would then support themselves again, and taking longer to cap those planets would equal alot more dead ships.
However, on the same hand, saturns moons have 6 or 7 planets in that cluster. I can't remember what types but im sure it would end up being around 15-20 "ships worth" according to your system... What I'm saying is that your system would work good in sag, but would make invading a home server literally impossible, where friendly ai is not available until you cap some planets. Good luck getting around 30 actual players on one faction at the same time, let alone to work together.
Maybe tone the system down a bit and bring back the old planetary defences. Or maybe something else.
I don't know what the solution is but I am glad it is being discussed and your idea makes more sense than many others I have read. I really want planets to mean something and I always have. I also think that planets should be destabilized when they are conquered. Making them significantly more prone to revolting back to their original faction. Imagine how much resistance there would be on earth if some force came and tried to conquer us. We wouldnt just lie down and take it, it would take decades to get us to submit. I see no reason why this wouldnt apply in DarkSpace as well... Although instead of decades maybe hours 
Edit: With a bit of extra thought something occured to me. Perhaps give infantry an "exterminate" option. Which would wipe out the population (not the population needed for running structure... maybe a seperate population for the purpose of this) the population would fight back and therefore this method would require many more infantry than normal (as they would be getting killed by the population) but it would greatly reduce the amount of time a planet would be more likely to revolt.
[ This Message was edited by: Cory_O on 2011-02-02 19:07 ]
_________________
I am the monster in your head. I am the phantom under your bed. I am the broken string when youre hanging by a thread. I am the darkness when the light fades away. When the buds of hope begin to sprout I am the harvester.
|
Scorched Soul[+R]
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: November 14, 2005
Posts: 378
From: USA, NJ, Princeton
| Posted: 2011-02-02 19:18
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-02 16:57, Saint Valentine wrote:
There can be one additional mechanic that lets small fleets have a chance. That is, disabling planets makes them lose their point value.
|
|
as for how to disable a planet you could get rid of the Hub. If a planet doesnt have an interplanetary hub it cant extend its influence to other planets.
also to begin influencing others a planet should have at least X technology (was thinking 10 but you can pick another value if you like) so that you cant just grab one planet in a cluster build a hub and have it take all the other planets for you. the biggest place this would be an issue is in the scenario server.
_________________
|
jamesbob
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 22, 2009
Posts: 410
| Posted: 2011-02-02 20:14
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-02 05:28, Saint Valentine wrote:
I think this is a bit of common sense, but Im going to throw it out just incase no one has considered it.
Since planetary defense range is so narrow, planetary clusters have lost ALOT of their value. There isn't a while lot that a cluster benefits from now since there isn't this 2kgu damage radius.
So, why have clusters? Should they be strategically important or should they not be? I pose this question.
Should they actually be intended to be important, then I suggest the following:
Planets THEMSELVES can contribute to control point value. That is, if you have a planet thats in orbit around another object, all the objects in that group get a control point boost. This can be modified by planet type. This means that clusters of planets take much much longer to capture.
For example, you have a Terran surrounded by an Arid and a Barren. They all get the same bonus. The bonus is significant enough that a literal fleet is needed to budge the control point value. I would suggest that:
1 Barren = 1 ship
1 Arid/Ice = 2 ships
1 Water = 3 ships
And 1 Terran = 4 ships.
This means with infantry on top of it all, a barren in cluster (such as Paul, lets use paul as an example).
Paul is a Terran surrounded by two waters and an arid.
That means that the entire cluster, when controled by one faction, is effectively the same as 12 ships needed to orbit just to break even on one of them. Not including infantry, which is the equivlent of another 3 ships. So its about 15 ships needed to take that cluster.
Sounds like alot? It should. Bombing planets, disabling planets, it should be easy enough. But actually capturing them?
Lone planets should be simple captures. Clusters should be royal pains in the ass. Some might say thats too much, but put it like this:
Capturing one planet in a cluster puts it in your favor. This is the ticket. Its a double edged sword. You capture a water in the Paul cluster and its like having three ships affecting all the planets in the cluster. That means clusters are hard to break into, but if you get a foothold the cluster becomes much more manageable. This is the benefit, and the downfall, and the significance of cluster planets.
However, if we have decided that cluster planets are unimportant, then disregard this entire post and leave it as it is.
-Ent
|
|
hang on yesterday you said the planets are fine in the yell when me and you had a augument about the planet bases and planet usefullness.
you got to love ent for this.
ent: planet are not easyer to bomb they are harder
me: WHAT GALAXY ARE YOU IN.
then a hour long augument where you claim planets are fine and i tell you to get your head checked.
then several hours having a augument about something else.
then a 3 way augument with necro as well as me and you about oh lets see a bit about plantary defences and a bunch of other topics.
[ This Message was edited by: jamesbob on 2011-02-02 20:18 ]
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-02-02 23:27
Quote:
|
Arid should have more control than Water planets, you can import water but can't import land.
|
|
No, but other planets need water. Makes them very resourceful planets.
Quote:
|
Planets already have an order, which you can see in their resource caps:
- Home Planets: 500,000
- Terran: 300,000
- Arid: 200,000
- Ocean: 150,000
- Ice: 100,000
- Barren: 50,000
Could just give them a "ship" bonus based on some multiple of the above - ie, one point per 100k resources.
|
|
It would be about the same thing, but I think its a good metric to go by.
Quote:
|
There is one big flaw to this system that hasn't been mentioned yet. Badges... If it takes "days" to capture a cluster then that means the people who started the capping will not be there to finish it, and therefore will not recieve a planet cap point. Meaning that until people have played for (assuming they constantly capped planets and never slept ate or did anything else) literally years to get the planet capped badges. These badges are somewhat necesarry for higher level ships. By somewhat i mean very.
|
|
Not such a bad consequence. You either stay for the battle and contribute or you're out of luck. Gold Star is too easy to get, I wouldn't mind a few badges being really difficult to get.
However, there is still things like scenario for that.
Quote:
|
I like this idea, planets are what made me get into dark space. I quit playing for a little while and come back and now planets are an absolute joke. My pride and joy defence cluster in sol (saturns moons) is now worthless, They no longer support eachother as I orignally built them to do (when the servers "merged"), because no planet can reach any other planet with its weapons. With your system they would then support themselves again, and taking longer to cap those planets would equal alot more dead ships.
However, on the same hand, saturns moons have 6 or 7 planets in that cluster. I can't remember what types but im sure it would end up being around 15-20 "ships worth" according to your system... What I'm saying is that your system would work good in sag, but would make invading a home server literally impossible, where friendly ai is not available until you cap some planets. Good luck getting around 30 actual players on one faction at the same time, let alone to work together.
|
|
I did mention that planetary systems would have to be tweaked again. Clusters that are too big or too powerful would have to be rduced.
Quote:
|
Edit: With a bit of extra thought something occured to me. Perhaps give infantry an "exterminate" option. Which would wipe out the population (not the population needed for running structure... maybe a seperate population for the purpose of this) the population would fight back and therefore this method would require many more infantry than normal (as they would be getting killed by the population) but it would greatly reduce the amount of time a planet would be more likely to revolt
|
|
I think this is a very very good idea.
Quote:
|
as for how to disable a planet you could get rid of the Hub. If a planet doesnt have an interplanetary hub it cant extend its influence to other planets.
also to begin influencing others a planet should have at least X technology (was thinking 10 but you can pick another value if you like) so that you cant just grab one planet in a cluster build a hub and have it take all the other planets for you. the biggest place this would be an issue is in the scenario server.
|
|
This is a better idea than basing it off PD%. A certain technology level should be required. I would say 50 tech.
Quote:
|
hang on yesterday you said the planets are fine in the yell when me and you had a augument about the planet bases and planet usefullness.
you got to love ent for this.
ent: planet are not easyer to bomb they are harder
me: WHAT GALAXY ARE YOU IN.
then a hour long augument where you claim planets are fine and i tell you to get your head checked.
then several hours having a augument about something else.
then a 3 way augument with necro as well as me and you about oh lets see a bit about plantary defences and a bunch of other topics.
|
|
Man Im the best troll in the world.  You got played. I just liked messing with you because I knew you were getting aggravating at how easy it was to take down your shipyards.
Of course I knew there was a problem, thats why I started a thread like this.
Planets are very weak now and clusters are pathetic. Yeah I know. Im not stupid, but I do like messing with people ingame, its an art form.
Anyways.
On a side note, I think we should also consider one more factor that holds little relevance currently.
Sometimes if you pay attention, you'll read the words "faction has taken control of y system" and then it will turn red or green and you just say whatev.
I would say that Control being the new concept in planetary and system wide terms, it would also make sense that if a system become yours, that controlling the area would provide some kind of control boost. Oh you know what I'm getting at.
The star of a system is an object in itself and it does get assigned a faction when a majority of the planets in the system become that faction.
One more factor in the game: Making significant the capturing of a system.
Say a control % just like on planets was placed on the star itself. Obviously, there are the main planets that orbit the star. It makes sense then that *their* ship value affects the star too. The Star has a Control % value the goes up or down depending on the ship value of the various factions with main planets orbiting a sun. The star is neutral until a factoin gains 100% control and it becomes locked for at least 1 hour.
Taking control of a system should have beneficiary affects for all the planets in the system that a faction owns, such as a small 1 ship point value boost, or increased resource output. Considering that it having any negative effects on the enemy planets in the system is also an option, I leave that on the table for other people because that may be too OP.
-Ent
-Ent
[ This Message was edited by: Saint Valentine on 2011-02-02 23:28 ]
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
