September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Moderator: Support Moderators

User avatar
Whis
Global Moderator
Posts: 767
Joined: Thu 28 Nov, 2013 06:53
Reputation: 27

September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Whis » Wed 03 Sep, 2014 02:54

I've seen a lot of talk about making other Astros, besides Rockies, worthwhile to build on.

You know the rules, get to it.

User avatar
Sarah-bunny
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu 23 Dec, 2010 21:31
Reputation: 86
Guild: ADEHIJKLMP retired; F XI O IMP
Galaxy: Omega
Location: lives in a shoe

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Sarah-bunny » Wed 03 Sep, 2014 21:41

One of the things that makes this game good, and better than some similar games in the genre is its simplicity.

There are a series of games (i think either the original went open source, or else people ripped it off) was so complicated that it was unplayable... literally every astro type was important in different ways and you had to get a whole bunch of different types to mine certain necessary items. My son liked it cos he likes to do computer programming and stuff and is very technical, but isn't so interested in games for the social aspect. But for me a game that was really technical... you get so tired trying to build up the account, you don't have energy left over for "fighting" the account or interacting with the other players.

So I'd caution any significant changes to the astro system as it is presently. (There are already horribly unplayable uber technical "lets throw every idea that AE FMR rejected into our game" games out there :P ).

So as frustrating as it might be for their to be only two "prime" astros to colonize (RP1 and RP2), this is what AE is, and the alternative ("every astro is special in its own way") really is worse.

(As a pure aside, if you use KaHaR worldbuilder, you learn that the other metal 3 astros - other than asteroids - aren't really *that* bad... and that a crater or metallic pos 2 planet is about the same build times and build cost as the rocky moons. really.)

So why am I writing in this topic if I think the status quo is better than change? Um, well... The only change that might be worth discussing again is the gaia research bonus. Its something most people come up with when they think about how pretty the gaia is and how the ecosystems on one surely are a boon to scientific research. (Seriously, it occured to me before I even knew there was a forum... or other space games :P ).

But the primary reason that I think its a cool idea is cos of how it plays into the current expansion dynamic of AE. As a function of how many astros people can make and how many players there are, there is a real, serious rush and fight over rockies. my favorite hits early game aren't CV rushes on bases (although ofc that's fun)... nah, fav hits are against OS on rocky planet pos 1 and 2. really nothing beats that, idk why.

so since gaia are pretty scarce (if you consider just the planets), as long as the research bonus is enough to offset the lack of metal 3 so that players will feel compelled to get one for their primary research base, I can have more fun killing Outpost Ships since there's another category of astro to "guard" so that only people in my guild can get it. (Early you can't camp out on everything cos of fleet slots available, so you tend to "guard" the rockies that are close to you... that you can get a CV to quickly from your base... or have a CV stack central to a couple rockies :P ).

Of course, for balance you wouldn't want to research bonus to be too outlandishly extravagent, or else the accounts that get the gaia would be at... oh wait... only Fenix WNS people thought that tech >>> fleet :P. Well, ofc tech is outlandishly over-rated in the game... i tend to have very high econ and fleet ranks, and the low overall tech rank is pretty low (ofc the important techs i'm fine on... i don't research silly things i don't need :P :P ).

tl/dr: adding a research bonus for Gaia would make the early CV killing of OS more interesting, wouldn't imbalance the game cos tech isn't so meaningful, and wouldn't make the game any more complicated. plus Gaia are pretty and i need an excuse to colonize one :P :P

EDIT: c'mon people... this issue is the most talked about feature request over the last two years in the Server P&W threads (which is the wrong place to write about it :P :P ). so i can't be the only person who even remotely cares :P

essentially retired all servers... idk why anyone would play this game
FrostyGoblin wrote:it's the forums ffs, it's made purely of trolls, obnoxius people, the occasional new player that gets verbally abused instantly and sarah.
User avatar
Hasdrubal
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue 05 Sep, 2006 18:44
Reputation: 3

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Hasdrubal » Sat 13 Sep, 2014 15:46

I like idea of Gaia worlds that can have upgraded their habitable, but instead of only Gaia, this should be extended to Earthly/Oceanic worlds or maybe to all 2-metal worlds.

However, in the game is already feature which is not used at all - the size and color of the star. Let's say that yellow star is the basic star (as we consider our Sun as basic star). Bigger stars should more fertility zone to outer orbits, probably adding third habitable bonus orbit, but giant blue star would have gas reduced, for value of 2 (so some astros would have "negative" gas bonus or reduced to 0). Smaller stars should have fertility zones moved toward the sun, probably reducing habitable orbit to just one. Also, bigger stars should give more solar value to each orbit, while small stars would reduce solar value. Red stars should reduce solar value, so small red star would decrease value by 2, but outer orbits should have more gas. Neutron stars would not at all have bonuses for habitable zone nor gas, but would have solar increased by at least one.

This is just idea - implementing would not put much pressure, while finding best astro would depend of what is nature of player, not just favorizing one special astro/position - which is usually 2nd or 1st rocky.

User avatar
loshi1505
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon 09 Jan, 2012 18:38
Reputation: 5
Guild: [ANIME]
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: on AE PEWPEWing Pixl Fleets

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby loshi1505 » Sun 14 Sep, 2014 22:45

give gaia 3 metal. :paranoid:

or as a real suggestion remove metal form effecting prod and replace it with the standard 3 in all formulas.... in other words metal now only effects con and prod is the same regardless of astro type.... but alas it will likely never happen. :roll:

User avatar
Whis
Global Moderator
Posts: 767
Joined: Thu 28 Nov, 2013 06:53
Reputation: 27

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Whis » Mon 15 Sep, 2014 22:45

I don't think taking away completely the Rocky's status as the best astro is the intention. The intention is to give other astros a way to compete as a close second.

*edit:
However, along the same line, what if metal on a base was tied to construction value and production was tied to shipyards? Obviously formula adjustments would need made, but as a general idea..

User avatar
loshi1505
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon 09 Jan, 2012 18:38
Reputation: 5
Guild: [ANIME]
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: on AE PEWPEWing Pixl Fleets

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby loshi1505 » Tue 16 Sep, 2014 00:44

Whis wrote:I don't think taking away completely the Rocky's status as the best astro is the intention. The intention is to give other astros a way to compete as a close second.

*edit:
However, along the same line, what if metal on a base was tied to construction value and production was tied to shipyards? Obviously formula adjustments would need made, but as a general idea..
thus my second real-ish suggestion if you didn't notice. :wink:

giving gaia 3 metal was more of a half joke. :paranoid:

User avatar
Whis
Global Moderator
Posts: 767
Joined: Thu 28 Nov, 2013 06:53
Reputation: 27

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Whis » Tue 16 Sep, 2014 01:31

Simply replacing all metal values in calculations with a three makes the current choice astros just the same as every other astro.

User avatar
loshi1505
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon 09 Jan, 2012 18:38
Reputation: 5
Guild: [ANIME]
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: on AE PEWPEWing Pixl Fleets

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby loshi1505 » Tue 16 Sep, 2014 03:50

only in prod capacities. :wink: con remain the same. :P

thus rockies are still a bit better then the rest... but at least the gap is smaller with the mentioned method. :D

ninja edit:
well at least that was my intent. :paranoid:

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19485
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 589
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Wlerin » Tue 16 Sep, 2014 06:36

loshi1505 wrote:
Whis wrote:I don't think taking away completely the Rocky's status as the best astro is the intention. The intention is to give other astros a way to compete as a close second.

*edit:
However, along the same line, what if metal on a base was tied to construction value and production was tied to shipyards? Obviously formula adjustments would need made, but as a general idea..
thus my second real-ish suggestion if you didn't notice. :wink:

giving gaia 3 metal was more of a half joke. :paranoid:
Your second suggestion is the one that takes away the Rocky's status...

User avatar
blahblah
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1876
Joined: Fri 03 Apr, 2009 13:41
Reputation: 52
Location: not the USA

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby blahblah » Thu 18 Sep, 2014 09:31

allow bonuses for some astro types
ie gia have a research bonus (say 10% on any research on said base)
would be a big gain for linked research

toxic has lower JG cost (say 50% lower)

capital bonus on earthys (um no real idea but I guess 100%)

maybe some astro types can unlock some building types
say you need an active glacial to until anti-gravity

giving AE the bird since 2009
User avatar
loshi1505
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon 09 Jan, 2012 18:38
Reputation: 5
Guild: [ANIME]
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: on AE PEWPEWing Pixl Fleets

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby loshi1505 » Thu 18 Sep, 2014 22:17

Wlerin wrote: Your second suggestion is the one that takes away the Rocky's status...
really?

personally I think my second idea wouldn't be enough to de-throne rockies but rather lower the gap between them and other terrain types.... I mean metal would still affect con which in turn effects how many SY one has and the fairly good fertility is still 1 away from making it OP class.... >_>

Hayley
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon 15 Jun, 2009 10:26
Reputation: 63

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Hayley » Sat 20 Sep, 2014 07:10

IMO the problem with the astro selection as it is, is that the planets/moons are too similar to each other and thus easy to compare as to which one is the best.

Rockies are basically the same as Craters and Metallic except that they have 1 more fertility and C/M have 1 crystal.

The 1 crystal ends up being useless and thus Rockies become by default the best one.

By making variance in base stats so small, it becomes very obvious which planets are by far the best in every stage of the game - which right now is Rocky P1 / P2.


I would try making the variance between astros larger in order to make things more interesting - for example:

What if Crystallines had 5 Crystal instead of 3?

What if Metallics had 6 Metal but only 30 Base Area?

What if Arid has 1 Metal, 400 Base Area and 10 Base Fertility?


I'd like to see how changing around the astro selection would change the game beyond what is now a mad rush for rockies.

Event Horizon
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 20:03
Reputation: 11
Guild: [╰▲╯] Ævikings
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Event Horizon » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:08

I agree with making metal refineries have a base production value of three and just having the metal stat of the astro be the construction value. Making both stats dependent on metal for the metal refineries has always been poorly balanced imo. Production capacity is still too important to sacrifice it for anything else in the game. A starting point for creating more diversity in the uses and benefits of different astros is to set MR prod to 3. That alone would make some astros better than rockies for certain purposes:

Gaia, Earthly and Arid would be better than Rockies for research bases because of the added fertility and area.
The high energy astros like magma, toxic and radioactives would now be better for high level jumpgates (especially those outer orbit astros with 5 gas).
Crystallines
Rockies, Craters and Metallics would still be essential for the best production given their optimum balance of fertility, area and energy and the +1 bonus to MRs.

In terms of tweaking certain astros I think there are two ways you can go. Either you give small bonuses to different astros so they can be specialized for different purposes:
- give a +1 bonus to research cap of labs (ie. 7 instead of 6) on Gaia, Earthly, Tundra and Arid astros.
- give a 5% bonus to speed on Magma, Toxic and Radioactives
- crystallines and roids already have their own built in bonuses and the extra production on crystallines would definitely make them a much better place to build


Or you can add new buildings/resources to these astros that require new technologies to use. The thinking with this option is that players would be able to develop their empires to take advantage of specific astro types and not others.
- Magnetic Field Generator/Generation (can only be built on Magma, Toxic and Radioactives or only effects a bonus to warp speed on these astros)
- Advanced Laboratories (can only be built on or only effects Gaia, Earthly, Arid and Tundra) increases research cap on the astro by X%


Personally, I prefer the first option because it is simpler and would be easier to implement.

verocaljack1
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed 15 Jun, 2011 21:01
Reputation: 0

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby verocaljack1 » Fri 03 Oct, 2014 05:13

this is my very first post, so here it goes.

Event Horizon's & Hasdrubal's posts are more in line with my thoughts with regards to astros, stars, and orbits. i believe that the astros that are not being used need the improvement so that we are not only looking for metal 3 astros.

with that said, maybe we could also focus on asteroid belts and gas giants. with regards to these, higher lvl tech would be needed. low lvl players would have to wait to be able to even start harnessing the resources of ABs and GGs.

1) ABs would be a source of metal and/or crystal. now to 'mine' the resource, you would need to 'build' a base. to do that, you would need to have the new anti-gravity tech and you would need 2-3 OS (the reason for more than 1 OS would be because there would need to be multiple habitat locations in the AB) to build the base in the AB. cost for this base would go in line with your base costs, ie if your next base cost 1mil creds, then you would need that amount to build the base in the AB. the stats for the AB would be metal 5, crystal 5, gas 2, and fert 2. there would be no area
to mine the material, there would be a new structure, orbital mine or refinery, that would become available when the you research lvl 1 of the anti-gravity tech. the structure would have -1 pop, -12 energy, +10 econ, and a price tag of 40,000 credits for the first lvl. this structure could be used on regular astros as well.
after the base is up and running, you could be able to build any of the orbital type of structures that we can now build around our astros. so that would be orbital plants, shipyards, bases, and the new orbital mine structure. you would also be able to build JGs. but wait for the GG with regards to JGs.

2) GGs would be the astro that you would want to build a JG base. everything that can be built in an AB can be build around a GG. the biggest thing that you will get from the GG is gas for energy to your structures. the stats could be metal 0, gas 6, crystal 0, fert 2. again, there would be no area.

that is all i got at the moment. thnx

User avatar
Virsteinn
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 21:40
Reputation: 2
Guild: Independent Resistance Movement
Galaxy: Andromeda

Re: September 2014 FMR - revision/addition of planets

Postby Virsteinn » Tue 18 Nov, 2014 10:02

Instead of giving the various Astros a unique bonus, which would, in my honest opinion, horrendously unbalance the game, just implement structures that increase Metal, Crystal, Solar, and Gas to some hard-capped value, while at the same time providing some other (fixed) bonus. This would make it so that people would largely ignore the starting stats of Astros, much as I do the starting Area of Asteroids (gotta love cheap PRings). Coding them in would be as simple as duplicating and editing the code that already exists for BioMods, so my concept ain't exactly far-fetched.

On a side note, I'm supportive of verocaljack's suggestions regarding Asteroid Belts and Gas Giants. Perhaps to support it, OBs could be three times as expensive to cover for providing 20 area per level, and Terraforming could be renamed Station Expansion specifically for Gas Giants. The Tables could, of course, easily be edited to show that 1) the 20 area per OB level and 300% price hike would be specific to Gas Giants and Asteroid Belts, and 2) Terraforming would only be called Station Expansion in the case of a Gas Giant (seriously, how do you terraform that which has no solid surface?). Also, it'd make sense if a Gas Giant needed five or more OSs to become a base, since attempting to settle on the surface of a Gas Giant would result in the ships being crushed, along with their occupants.

Only the fool seeks a fight, whether deliberately or inadvertently through their own selfish actions, where there is more to be gained through more amicable methods.Image

Return to “FMR: Frequently Made Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests