July 2014 FMR Review - new ways to get econ

[Corgi]

I feel like it may be worth noting that, since it seems there are many ideas of ways to directly increase economy (eco structures, trade structures, eco tech, trade tech, etc.), one could also raise econ indirectly by adding another structure for area (let's say a 20 area structure) or population (20 population, just for the sake of it) because less time/credits spent on building structures which increase population/area/energy translates to the ability to spend more credits on eco (prod/res as well). An additional alternative to more structures (or both could be implemented I suppose) would be if area and population recieved a tech which increases them by x% on all planets (also a possible buff to energy tech's %?).

[macbro]

Not sure if this is in the right topic. Change the base stability countdown from 3% to 2% on United Colonies bases. Will increase the economy of the occupation holder from 31 days to 50 days. Additionally, do not start the countdown until the base is actually occupied.

[Rajam]

Why are you regular posters so against raising econ? It seems like you want the game to stay exactly as it is with no changes at all. That seems pretty foolish if you ask me.

I'll give you a reason to raise econ. As the game gets older and accounts get higher Construction/Production/Research caps the econ doesn't really scale with them. A small boost to econ would go a long way.

Here is an idea just off the top of my head.

Orbital Bank
Requires
Anti-Gravity 5
Capital 5
Cost @1st level: 30,000
Energy 5
Population 1

Generates 5 credits/hour

Something similar has undoubtedly been posted in the past but I'm just attempting to get the conversation back on track.

[Winchester]

I was against arbitrarily raising econ before v2.0 hit, as it was merely econ for the sake of econ; now, something needs to change - econ or fleet maintenance. I'd rather the latter, but I'll take the former.

[Rajam]

I was against arbitrarily raising econ before v2.0 hit, as it was merely econ for the sake of econ; now, something needs to change - econ or fleet maintenance. I'd rather the latter, but I'll take the former.

Yeah, well, When people cry "No X for the sake of X" it seems rather ignorant of the state of the game. Orbital Plants are just energy for the sake of energy.

The game evolves and accounts mature. There will be new additions so deal with it.

[shadow_knight]

I was against arbitrarily raising econ before v2.0 hit, as it was merely econ for the sake of econ; now, something needs to change - econ or fleet maintenance. I'd rather the latter, but I'll take the former.

Yeah, well, When people cry "No X for the sake of X" it seems rather ignorant of the state of the game. Orbital Plants are just energy for the sake of energy.

The game evolves and accounts mature. There will be new additions so deal with it.

Orbital Plants are energy for the sake of space, which they introduced at the same time as new base costs which made area for base development much more crucial

[Hasdrubal]

I am against new building/tech for increasing economy. But, if such thing is important for players, let's see that with eyes of old players - after a while, they don't have money to build anything as things become increasingly expensive (save fleets). But, loss of main fleet is even greater disaster and often means end for that account.

While increasing the number of available ships is undesirable - even if specialized for something new, like ion ships were in past, and Levi/DS before that, old players usually don't have something to care about - scouting for targets, with increased number of clusters, can hold players for days, probably weeks, but not the whole year - so, for that players others invented scouting tools to avoid hard jobs, while they can focus on important things (I know scouting tools are forbidden). Penalizing scouting is important part how developers see this game, but not if the players have multiple accounts or hold accounts if they are regularly paid. But, the game itself needs to evolve for old players, thus giving players something more to think about, or to have new goals. Economy, production, new tech, new buildings - as I stated above, don't think it would improve game.

One thing, however, can be done, thus making old account more desirable:
If players receive bonus on economy for each full month they play and each year they play, probably only for upgraded accounts, but I think it shojuld be implemented to free accounts as well, in the way that for each month player receive 0.5% increase in eco and for each year 10% increase in eco, so player that is 15 months old on particular server and has 5000 eco (both economy and trade), he would receive 10% eco for 1 year, and 1.5% for 3 months, totaling 11.5% which would give him total eco of 5575 credits. If the player is in game for 40 months he would receive 30% for three years and 2% for two months which would make him total of 6600 credits per hour. In the light of fleet maintenance, older players would have increased free fleet, thus easier to return size once they lost main fleet or big part of it.

But, not only that - the same model can be copied to research, production and construction.

[Philosopher Cody]

It is true that I have made multiple posts in the past for increasing economy. I think there are some major problems to adding more structures. It can become too many structures for the game. I would think that a technology that directly affects an existing structure to make it more effective, similar to how biosphere modification makes urban structures more effective. Or as I suggested on pervious post about making sub-structures. Add-on's to existing structures. For example, and economic center could have add-on's with each add-on increasing the economy of each economic center by one point per level of add-on.

Or how about a structure that increases the total number of crystals on an astro similar to biosphere modification with fertility?

[Ice Pick]

Idc about 2.0 so I don't really have any viable experience to comment on that.

But I do believe ''1.5'' could benefit from some type of economy boost that would specifically boost lower level players more than higher - losing 2-3 years worth of sim has finally become a problem for some people - there's a group of players that will keep playing no matter how much fleet they lost but there's also a group that could just quit when they see that rebuilding is near impossible and occ hunting is harder than it was in the past + your economy rebuild just falls more and more behind the production of whoever/whatever guild shot you.