April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Moderator: Support Moderators

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19415
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 584
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby Wlerin » Mon 15 Sep, 2014 10:19

Whis wrote:Then no one would use their fleets, if you get penalized for having them not on your base, most would keep them on their base.

Indeed. There are a few things that could be done to encourage them to use them, but "no maintenance on base" is still going to be a terrible idea.


As terrible as making maintenance based only on, and penalizing only, economy.

User avatar
Hasdrubal
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue 05 Sep, 2006 18:44
Reputation: 3

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby Hasdrubal » Mon 15 Sep, 2014 17:15

Wlerin wrote:
Whis wrote:Then no one would use their fleets, if you get penalized for having them not on your base, most would keep them on their base.

Indeed. There are a few things that could be done to encourage them to use them, but "no maintenance on base" is still going to be a terrible idea.


As terrible as making maintenance based only on, and penalizing only, economy.

Why? If people wants to have fleets on their bases, OK. I would attack them, take debris and return or find another target. If my maintenance value is not reached, I can do all of them without any penalty.

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19415
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 584
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby Wlerin » Mon 15 Sep, 2014 22:54

Hasdrubal wrote:
Wlerin wrote:
Whis wrote:Then no one would use their fleets, if you get penalized for having them not on your base, most would keep them on their base.

Indeed. There are a few things that could be done to encourage them to use them, but "no maintenance on base" is still going to be a terrible idea.


As terrible as making maintenance based only on, and penalizing only, economy.

Why? If people wants to have fleets on their bases, OK. I would attack them, take debris and return or find another target. If my maintenance value is not reached, I can do all of them without any penalty.

Please actually think about this for longer than 2 seconds. How are you going to kill effectively infinite fleet (no maintenance on bases) with finite (under maintenance) fleet?

More importantly why would you even move your fleet when doing so incurs a massive penalty? And heaven help you if you try to invade another cluster.

User avatar
Hasdrubal
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue 05 Sep, 2006 18:44
Reputation: 3

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby Hasdrubal » Tue 16 Sep, 2014 11:56

Wlerin wrote:Please actually think about this for longer than 2 seconds. How are you going to kill effectively infinite fleet (no maintenance on bases) with finite (under maintenance) fleet?

More importantly why would you even move your fleet when doing so incurs a massive penalty? And heaven help you if you try to invade another cluster.

What massive penalty? Penalty is already here with fleet maintenance. I suggest that, if free fleet maintenance is value of 10 M (for instance), and you have 20 M, you can use 10 M to attack others and to attack enemy bases, while 10 M can be at your bases. Once you deplet part of your attacking force, refill from your bases, then refill your bases with new ship (if needed).
Regarding sizes of the fleets - one can have fleet of, say, 300 M - 100 M let them be free of maintenance and 200 M will be added for mainenance fee if they are moved or will stay at home to avoid maintenance. If I can handle these 200 M on single base alone or with friends, I would take massive debris and all maintenance value will be neglectible to gain. What can be lost - 2-3 days of maintenance? That may go up to 1 M in credits? But, I already don't have it with present situation.

If someone has less fleet on bases or distribute it evently, on each base would be about 10 M - I need about 20-30 M to clear such bases with big profit.

So, main problem with proposed solution would be if one wants to reduce fleet size within maintenance limit, to have it bigger and mobile, or to have mobile fleet within maintenance limits and refill fleets beyond these maintenance limit free of fee but on own bases. Some players already have such bases which are usually with great defense and CC to avert possible attackers.
Don't forget - fleet that is free of maintenance is fleet which is not on blobs, so easier to attack. The remark that one can have infinite fleet doesn't stand - no fleet is big enough that can't be crushed in well coordinated attack by several players.

Event Horizon
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 20:03
Reputation: 10
Guild: [╰▲╯] Ævikings
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby Event Horizon » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:47

I'm going to thow in a thread here that I posted on this issue. Basically the proposal is to make the fleet cap based on production capacity so that no matter what age the server is the time to replace your fleet (back up to the cap when you were zeroed) is the same (somewhere between 3 to 6 weeks seems reasonable).

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=113658&p=2146340#p2146340

The idea here is that the fleet cap would be around 500 x production capacity with a 2% penalty to production cap for every 1% players exceed their cap. So basically your fleet production slows down as you exceed the cap and approaches zero as you approach 2x your cap. The time for production orders would be based on the existing total fleet plus the fleet being put into production and any other fleet ordered to finish prior to the existing order.

Since production capacity is already soft capped by limits to base development this would scale perfectly with the age of servers. Also, I would argue that the cap should always be based on the maximum prod cap and not be affected by being occupied.

Personally, I think this is a heck of a lot better than penalizing economy.

User avatar
Karsus
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 07 Mar, 2009 17:56
Reputation: 39
Guild: F: ex-[GOON]
A2: [PPD]
B2: [BOB]
Galaxy: Andromeda

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby Karsus » Sun 04 Jan, 2015 03:07

I have to say that having 0% Fleet Maintenance after the Moyal&SOLID crash at A05 was awesome. Despite a lot of people not getting their proper debris shares that extra income helped in getting a portion of one's fleet back easier.

P.S. I like the idea of fleet maintenance based on prod capacity instead of income even though both have merits.

Tears spread my creep!
Image
toxa
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue 06 May, 2008 04:14
Reputation: 13
Guild: Fenix: Total Anarchy

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby toxa » Fri 13 Mar, 2015 17:56

I have been thinking about it a lot lately and from quick reading here have seen others have already suggested it, but I have to join the argument that fleets on your own bases should be considered "docked fleets" that either A have no fleet maintenance at all or B drastically reduced fleet maintenance. It is logical from a role play side of the game and I strongly believe it will improve game play for all levels of players.

I come here as an experienced player since Delta days, GM of multiple guilds including close to 100 players in 2.0 server and leadership of plenty more. I have seen the slow progression towards servers that are killed faster and faster and right now 2.0 servers I would consider somewhat a failure to produce better quality game play largely due to how fleet maintenance currently works.

The big difference I see in no fleet maintenance will change a huge part of why AE has lost its appeal and that will be no long term blobbing. Blobbing will become a strategic move no longer a permanent strategy for the game. This has been a issue that countless people believe has been the downfall of AE and smaller guilds find it so hard to survive when blob staring occurs.

I have seen criticism to the idea that people can just stay home and create big fleets, there is nothing wrong with this we have had this style of game play for years. If you want to help encourage the rebuild race of ZF'd players you can reduce fleet maintenance to 25 or 50% cost of what it is when it is flying or on another base. But I don't see why we need to give weaker players a handicap in the first place, this is a war game the better players should be allowed to achieve.

The other criticism I have seen is that this will discourage attacking, I cannot agree at all, right now you have a case of people just blob up and look at the enemy in a situation where they have to unite half the server just to attack another cluster. This change would mean that people would not be in a constant state of readiness making sneak attacks more viable with scattered targets everywhere in the case of an invasion/ninja making the game a bit more like it used to be where we saw 100k accounts on a server.

To summarize the points of why I think this should be done is as follows.

* It will create an anti blobbing server, something that a lot of players desire

* It will discourage permanent occupation of active players, negating the profit of just placing large sums of fleet on an enemy players base and making decisions more strategic as well as farming. (this just makes players quit and we want more players not less.)

* It will discourage long term invasion plans, again plots to kill clusters/servers only ruins server population, less players = less fun and less money for AE.

* It will encourage more smaller scale warfare, people wanting to keep there fleet on base will spread players and fast active attacks will work more effectively to make profit.

* It would improve strategic locations like 09 galaxies which are incapable of gaining long distance trades. Giving more offset benefits and negatives to base placement other then getting the best econ.

Overall I strongly believe that it will improve the quality of play by making the game more fun for the ease of running smaller scale ops as well as discouraging heavy/long term offensive against players which sees most new players quit this game.

I am willing to discuss this with anyone and to back up my theory.

User avatar
Uncle Ben
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 8052
Joined: Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:10
Reputation: 169
Guild: Derbhoes!
Galaxy: Andromeda
Location: variable

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby Uncle Ben » Fri 03 Jun, 2016 10:27

Here's an idea: A Maintenance Commander. He would reduce fleet maintenance on the base he is on, by 1 or possibly even 2 percent of his level. Seems a lot more balanced to me than to simply reduce maintenance for all docked fleets.

Image
I've personally accomplished the spaying of TWO mods who tried to mess with my TT. ANY MORE CANDIDATES!?
User avatar
SilverKnight
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 10352
Joined: Mon 06 Aug, 2007 18:13
Reputation: 205
Guild: Royal
Galaxy: Pegasus
Location: Portland Oregon
Contact:

Re: April 2014 FMR review - fleet maintenance

Postby SilverKnight » Sun 05 Jun, 2016 07:25

toxa wrote:I have been thinking about it a lot lately and from quick reading here have seen others have already suggested it, but I have to join the argument that fleets on your own bases should be considered "docked fleets" that either A have no fleet maintenance at all or B drastically reduced fleet maintenance. It is logical from a role play side of the game and I strongly believe it will improve game play for all levels of players.

I come here as an experienced player since Delta days, GM of multiple guilds including close to 100 players in 2.0 server and leadership of plenty more. I have seen the slow progression towards servers that are killed faster and faster and right now 2.0 servers I would consider somewhat a failure to produce better quality game play largely due to how fleet maintenance currently works.

The big difference I see in no fleet maintenance will change a huge part of why AE has lost its appeal and that will be no long term blobbing. Blobbing will become a strategic move no longer a permanent strategy for the game. This has been a issue that countless people believe has been the downfall of AE and smaller guilds find it so hard to survive when blob staring occurs.

I have seen criticism to the idea that people can just stay home and create big fleets, there is nothing wrong with this we have had this style of game play for years. If you want to help encourage the rebuild race of ZF'd players you can reduce fleet maintenance to 25 or 50% cost of what it is when it is flying or on another base. But I don't see why we need to give weaker players a handicap in the first place, this is a war game the better players should be allowed to achieve.

The other criticism I have seen is that this will discourage attacking, I cannot agree at all, right now you have a case of people just blob up and look at the enemy in a situation where they have to unite half the server just to attack another cluster. This change would mean that people would not be in a constant state of readiness making sneak attacks more viable with scattered targets everywhere in the case of an invasion/ninja making the game a bit more like it used to be where we saw 100k accounts on a server.

To summarize the points of why I think this should be done is as follows.

* It will create an anti blobbing server, something that a lot of players desire

* It will discourage permanent occupation of active players, negating the profit of just placing large sums of fleet on an enemy players base and making decisions more strategic as well as farming. (this just makes players quit and we want more players not less.)

* It will discourage long term invasion plans, again plots to kill clusters/servers only ruins server population, less players = less fun and less money for AE.

* It will encourage more smaller scale warfare, people wanting to keep there fleet on base will spread players and fast active attacks will work more effectively to make profit.

* It would improve strategic locations like 09 galaxies which are incapable of gaining long distance trades. Giving more offset benefits and negatives to base placement other then getting the best econ.

Overall I strongly believe that it will improve the quality of play by making the game more fun for the ease of running smaller scale ops as well as discouraging heavy/long term offensive against players which sees most new players quit this game.

I am willing to discuss this with anyone and to back up my theory.


In Civ 2, maintenance was based on distance from home territory. Your concept here may work

Blobstares are the things that makes people suicide

http://silverknight1966.blogspot.com/
http://silverknightonae.tumblr.com
In before lock doesn't count when you are the one asking for it :neutral2: -Themis

Return to “FMR: Frequently Made Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest