Solving the Population Density Problem with Space Stations

[Avaqian]

Did you read the thread?

[loshi1505]

I did but since then there has been quite a few revisions and wasn't sure if what was in the OP post still stands.

also though it'd be a nice idea to have some pre-built defences since this is going to be double the cost of a normal base. heck 1 simple laser turret would do.

[Avaqian]

It wouldn't cost that much more, and if your really scared of it being occupied right when you make it you could just put some fleet on there. Maybe it should have something like Structural Integrity with a lot of armor on it, and this goes down along with defenses, then is at 0 as a wreck.

[loshi1505]

>_< not scared. more like think of how things are extremely chaotic server start and since this is double the cost you want it protected and closer to unprofitable as you can correct?

now getting it to be as close to unprofitable as you can you need defences not fleet as fleet can be derbed for profit where defences can not. (plus the fact this can be destroyed given enough time occed is reason enough to warrant a simple defence like a laser turret from the get go right?)

[Hasdrubal]

If space stations are to be used, I think that they should be able to be destroyed, i.e. any increase in their value should be counted in debris when they are destroyed.

That way, the SS would only be built in some extend (few levels of upgrade of buildings), their use would be some eco, but, more important, as "cheap" scouts (they don't use fleet slot).

As someone above already said, the problem is not population density but lack of players after some time.

[Avaqian]

^

Proposal:
cost/counting system is similar to bases, but separate;
free accounts get 9 bases and 5 space stations, but space stations cost 2x that of normal bases
Area 50
Solar (normal)
Fertility 4
Metal 3
Gas 0
Crystals 0
space ports don't need area
50% speed bonus (works like a JG)
occupation decreases durability/stability by 3% per day; once at 00%, it becomes a wreck;
if liberated before that, it regenerates at 3% per day
wreck loses durability/stability at 4% per day and gets deleted at zero;
wreck has no owner/income/etc., but ships can land there

Anything wrong with this? What do you like about this?

[Droideka]

Any more suggestions/problems???

[Virsteinn]

Having read ashtray's preceding suggestion on this subject, it seems to me like space stations shouldn't be constructed bases, but rather constructed base supports. After all, if space stations wind up being standalone bases, that's just one more place from which to crank out fleet. That in and of itself is overpowered just based on the fact that any fleet produced subsequently is that much more spread out. On the other hand, if structures constructed on the space station were directly linked to any one particular base, then it'd only be the base capacities that would be increased, as opposed to the number of production sites.

[liam777]

my first impression of this idea is that when you build a base you build metal refineries to increase your construction/ production but when you build a satellite your essentially sending a hunk of metal into orbit. So your going to send a hunk of metal into orbit and then build metal refineries on it? This seams counter productive to me. Apart from this objection i don't mind the idea although i dont like hard caps for base limits so i propose that the cost starts at 25 credits and then quadruples instead of doubles so it goes, 25, 100, 400, 1600, 6400, ect. free accounts however would be stuck at 5 until they upgrade.

[Dr Rush]

my first impression of this idea is that when you build a base you build metal refineries to increase your construction/ production but when you build a satellite your essentially sending a hunk of metal into orbit. So your going to send a hunk of metal into orbit and then build metal refineries on it? This seams counter productive to me. Apart from this objection i don't mind the idea although i dont like hard caps for base limits so i propose that the cost starts at 25 credits and then quadruples instead of doubles so it goes, 25, 100, 400, 1600, 6400, ect. free accounts however would be stuck at 5 until they upgrade.

AE>Realism

& it's only hard capped for free players.

Proposal:
cost/counting system is similar to bases, but separate;
free accounts get 9 bases and 5 space stations, but space stations cost 2x that of normal bases
Area 50
Solar (normal)
Fertility 4
Metal 3
Gas 0
Crystals 0
space ports don't need area
50% speed bonus (works like a JG)
occupation decreases durability/stability by 3% per day; once at 00%, it becomes a wreck;
if liberated before that, it regenerates at 3% per day
wreck loses durability/stability at 4% per day and gets deleted at zero;
wreck has no owner/income/etc., but ships can land there

Anything wrong with this? What do you like about this?

You need to update the OP.

[Droideka]

Do you mean edit my original post to display the most recent version of the idea?

[redphienix]

AE>Realism

stuff

edit: are you allowed to disband your satellites as you would a normal planet?

The reason for the argument "AE>realism" is just to say things don't HAVE to make sense.

Building metal refineries on a man-made hunk of metal makes no sense?
So what.

It just has to balance out with what exists.

The same reason Asteroids, a base that has 3 metal, 2 crystal, 4 fert and gets cheaper defenses was given less area.

Not for realism, for balance.

[Avaqian]

Asteroids having a discount on orbital/planetary defenses makes sense, because it doesn't have to wrap around a whole planet, just a smaller rock. And yeah, metal refineries doesn't make much sense, but oh well.

[redphienix]

blah blah blah balance

The balance has to balance, that's it.

And your 'case' was basically a rambling statement that MR on stations makes no sense and why aren't asteroids bigger?

So a random unrelated comment about asteroids to be ignored- and a single complaint saying to exclude MR from stations.

Rested case?

AE>Realism destroyed that case o-O because to put it bluntly, no one cares that it doesn't make sense. A base that can't make MR would be instantaneously worthless in AE. It would be a base that is even less attractive than 1 metal astros.

The balancing process needs to tie to the game itself, if that is what you mean by "sense".

[redphienix]

ok, so you have said why you have not answered it, but why dont you answer it now?

I do believe it would be because I have read all the same posts as you, so I do not have that information as the idea has changed throughout the posts but has not restated if disbanding is an option.

Thus far the only thing I've claimed makes no sense is your complaint that MR shouldn't be available on these due to realism.