Astro Empires 4.0 Features feedback thread

[Mato]

As I see it the loot mechanic is going to reduce the credit difference between the "winner" and the "loser". It is fine to reduce the credit difference after a fleet crash because it will help the loser come back from defeat, and it should be fine for base hits as well BUT using base defenses to achieve this is a bad idea because it promotes the ring stacking meta.

Many strong players in V3.5 already spend a large portion of their hourly income on defense construction instead of fleet production. Any feature that may encourage even more players to do this goes against the goal of making the game interesting. Please encourage players to play the game with fleet instead of base defenses.

[Philosopher Cody]

How about a server without bleed through so fighters cannot destroy everything? I liked the old days where one dreadnought could take out over 100,000 and get no damage because the power of fighters could not get through the shields. Make people build different units and use different fleets to make attacks.

[naethel]

I regularly farm bases with 6~8 ring levels at 35 armor and they are not an effective deterrent. For the period up until 30 armor rings are unarguably higher profit to hit because the maximum is 60% not 80%, 70%~80% comes years into the server and even when you can also fighter swarm bases for almost no loss.

You said it yourself, you can farm these rings thanks to armor 35, in 4.0 the max armor is 27 and it's not enough. So either we get back scaling armor hence more debris or prings late game gonna be almost always unprofitable if the base owner is not stupid and doesn't park huge amount of fleets over the base.

On Lynx i farm 50/50 - 55/55 370 econ prings and if i was capped at armor 27 i wouldn't be able to farm them at all. For a split second try to think how this feature would be abused by a competent player instead of always using extreme cases of newbies stacking rings without doing other things to tone down the profit. If the base has almost no fleet to derb over it and no long distance trades (or the owner is online dropping them) it's virtually unprofitable even if it has an high amount of economy.

On the other hand i also play in Frontier 2.0 version where there is no 65% rule and i have never been farmed in 5 years without needing any of these new rules that buff prings even more. Solo playing without a guild in crystal planets. So if i can do it everyone else can do it. The investment was big but on the other hand also an investment to build a 50m fleet is enormous especially in 2.0 version. It was balanced in my opinion, i've never felt that my prings were useless, i reached top 3 with a 6 months delay on subscribing into the server, and i did nothing special nor i invested a ton of my time over it, just clicked things while i was playing actively other servers, stacking rings and photon tech, without needing to upgrade except to build bases and premium buildings because i didn't use fleet at all (hence didn't need scout data) on that account. And i repeat; on 2.0 where ft swarm is allowed without the 65% rule nerf.

What baffles me now is that with a very low investment the defender can defend himself from a way bigger investment from the attacker. I am ok with it as a general tule since i do believe defences should be a tad more cheap and convenient than fleet but this is too much, this way defences will be so buffed that we can argue the base raid has been taken out of the game after 6-7 months of server age (i.e. after armor 27). You even agreed with this yourself on discord but to me it seems you just want your playstyle to be buffed without thinking about every other category of player.

[111]

I regularly farm bases with 6~8 ring levels at 35 armor and they are not an effective deterrent. For the period up until 30 armor rings are unarguably higher profit to hit because the maximum is 60% not 80%, 70%~80% comes years into the server and even when you can also fighter swarm bases for almost no loss.

You said it yourself, you can farm these rings thanks to armor 35, in 4.0 the max armor is 27 and it's not enough. So either we get back scaling armor hence more debris or prings late game gonna be almost always unprofitable if the base owner is not stupid and doesn't park huge amount of fleets over the base.

My point in that was armor 35 makes rings effectively worthless, armor 40 even more and that I'm in favor of the change. Base hits are extremely profitable as is and the update gives a good balance of encouraging early game while not being completely useless to build defenses late game.

[naethel]

And my point is that you're lying since as i've stated three times already i've never been hit by turtling up prings on servers where having prings is harsher than in 3.0, since debris returns are 82% max or a tad more i can't remember, and there is no 65% rule, so that ft swarms are harsher than in 3.0 and oneards and not all turtles i've met (me included in a couple accounts) were profitable even before these adjustments. You can't convince me otherwise since this is what i've been playing last 7 years, heck in one of my troll accounts i almost have no exp because almost no one hit me, i've been buying comms with credits.

If you want a virtually invulnerable base in my opinion you need several prings and an heavy investment, just like everyone else did before this version, it's doable and the cost is balanced for being virtually unhittable. Whining that your 20-25 prings may not be enough to defend an ultra high developed base is honestly cute. Please consider building more rings (if you want invulnerability) instead of risking to break the game for everyone else.

[111]

Saying you've personally never been hit isn't an argument. I've also shown reports of me hitting bases with 35~40 rings just with armor 35. Just because no one bothered to hit you doesn't mean it wouldn't be easy to do. If you're not as familiar with version 3.0 since you mention playing older servers you might not have realized that base defenses were relatively much weaker because of the crystal mine buff. Base pillages scale of econ and get to much higher levels faster then defenses can deal with, compared to v1.0 bases. There was also a penalty to rings on asteroids and moons making this even more expensive and fleet maintenance.

And the main cause of stagnation in the game is the need to defend bases. Being able to leave your galaxy or cluster for an extended period without having to base guard opens a lot more potential for fleet versus fleet content.

[Mato]

Not all fleet versus fleet content is good; if a zerg invades your guild with 2:1 total fleet only an incompetent GM would try to fight them head on. Bases are a weak point for an underdog to aim for, if you remove base farming you dumb down the game to "big blob kills smaller blob GG".

Asking for game updates that only help zergs is not good for the game's overall health.

Also the causes of stagnation in this game are a) moving fleet reports killed stealthy invasions and b) scorched earth tactics make it too easy to deny profit from bases. When a guild launches an invasion, their home galaxies are also vulnerable to invasion (= bases pillaged and trades lost). The problem is that the guild is unlikely to make enough credits to offset this loss from their own invasion, due to trade cancellations. When the losses >> profit most guilds don't want to launch any invasions and the game is stagnant.

Removing trade cancellation as a scorched earth tactic would be a massive improvement to this game.

[111]

Not all fleet versus fleet content is good; if a zerg invades your guild with 2:1 total fleet only an incompetent GM would try to fight them head on. Bases are a weak point for an underdog to aim for, if you remove base farming you dumb down the game to "big blob kills smaller blob GG".

Asking for game updates that only help zergs is not good for the game's overall health.

Also the causes of stagnation in this game are a) moving fleet reports killed stealthy invasions and b) scorched earth tactics make it too easy to deny profit from bases. When a guild launches an invasion, their home galaxies are also vulnerable to invasion (= bases pillaged and trades lost). The problem is that the guild is unlikely to make enough credits to offset this loss from their own invasion, due to trade cancellations. When the losses >> profit most guilds don't want to launch any invasions and the game is stagnant.

Removing trade cancellation as a scorched earth tactic would be a massive improvement to this game.

Bases don't serve as a weak point for zergs, they simply use their fleet advantage to keep their bases safe and servers stagnant. Moving large groups of players is more difficult. Bases defense benefits the smaller group much more then the large group.

[Mato]

they (zergs) simply use their fleet advantage to keep their bases safe

And this is a good thing for the smaller guilds. A large zerg blob is difficult to fight against, however if the zerg is forced to spread their fleets to defend territory they become more vulnerable. A small guild may plan stealthy invasions of the zerg's weaker galaxies and collect debris before reinforcements arrive. Such an op would involve studying the enemy's fleet positions and travel times, and reducing detection time of the invasion to ensure success.

If you remove base farming from the game there's nothing stopping a large group of players forming a cross-cluster alliance and collecting fleet at one huge blob to roll over smaller opponents. You would be removing an important aspect of game strategy (territory defense) and turning the game into "big blob eats smaller blobs GG lol".

Bases defense benefits the smaller group much more then the large group.

No offense but this statement exposes your ignorance of game strategy. It is ridiculous to suggest that base defenses are more useful for the guild with less bases.

I agree that servers are too stale, but getting rid of base farming is a horrible solution. Servers are stale because invasion profits are too low, and this can be attributed to moving fleet reports making it hard to catch fleets and scorched earth tactics making it hard to profit from bases. No good GM will launch an invasion if the expected credit gain is much lesser than the expected credit loss from a counter-invasion. Better to focus on the root causes of stagnation instead of selfishly asking for elimination of base farming because you dislike getting farmed.

[111]

No offense but this statement exposes your ignorance of game strategy. It is ridiculous to suggest that base defenses are more useful for the guild with less bases.

I agree that servers are too stale, but getting rid of base farming is a horrible solution. Servers are stale because invasion profits are too low, and this can be attributed to moving fleet reports making it hard to catch fleets and scorched earth tactics making it hard to profit from bases. No good GM will launch an invasion if the expected credit gain is much lesser than the expected credit loss from a counter-invasion. Better to focus on the root causes of stagnation instead of selfishly asking for elimination of base farming because you dislike getting farmed.

It has nothing to do with disliking being farmed, but the amount the base guarding causes stagnation. A small guild will not ever be able to compete with a larger guild in fleet, fleet is the only way to protect bases unless you build defenses to the point that the base isn't a profit. In you're scenario a smaller guild will never be able to force a galaxy trade, only the larger guild if they decide the trade is in their favor. The current state of the game isn't that people aren't fighting because they wouldn't profit from it, farming another cluster is already extremely rewarding and leaving your cluster is extremely high risk. This leads to people only leaving their galaxy when they feel its safe.

[Sparti]

Mato is right about the lack of movement on servers. Cluster invasions just aren't worth it anymore so no one does it. the risk to reward ratio is so much risk for so little reward its too much of a disadvantage to move. 111, Have you actually been part of a galaxy invasion on a 3,0 server?... I would imagine not from what your saying. landing in another cluster and getting to farm a galaxy is not rewarding at all, last invasion i was part of all the trades got cancelled and that made up around 60-100% of the profit margin for the base hits so most the bases didn't even get hit. we just sat and did nothing for a bit and flew home.

Build your empire,
Explore the galaxy,
Forge might alliances,
participate in epic battle?

^^ from the AE home page, not really true anymore is it? and your lying to keep changes from happening to keep your own play style relevant is part of the reason why. A Trade rework would be great for helping with content, where a GM and his VGMS can spend time planning an OP and not have the entire week of planning and 2-5 days of flight ruined by a discord ping and mass cancellation of trades on landing. even if its something small like a timer on trade cancellations or even just having half the trades income be added directly to a base econ for a higher pillage so its worth while. When you manage to land an OP after days of planning and find out your 50-100k fleet loss on a base hit is barely breaking even it kind of defeats the point of making the move... players who sit and do nothing but sim base growth all server are better off, simming and doing nothing is more effective than making moves and fighting it out as things stand. you know this as well its why you will be against anything that could change that lol

[111]

Mato is right about the lack of movement on servers. Cluster invasions just aren't worth it anymore so no one does it. the risk to reward ratio is so much risk for so little reward its too much of a disadvantage to move. 111, Have you actually been part of a galaxy invasion on a 3,0 server?... I would imagine not from what your saying. landing in another cluster and getting to farm a galaxy is not rewarding at all, last invasion i was part of all the trades got cancelled and that made up around 60-100% of the profit margin for the base hits so most the bases didn't even get hit. we just sat and did nothing for a bit and flew home.

Build your empire,
Explore the galaxy,
Forge might alliances,
participate in epic battle?

^^ from the AE home page, not really true anymore is it? and your lying to keep changes from happening to keep your own play style relevant is part of the reason why. A Trade rework would be great for helping with content, where a GM and his VGMS can spend time planning an OP and not have the entire week of planning and 2-5 days of flight ruined by a discord ping and mass cancellation of trades on landing. even if its something small like a timer on trade cancellations or even just having half the trades income be added directly to a base econ for a higher pillage so its worth while. When you manage to land an OP after days of planning and find out your 50-100k fleet loss on a base hit is barely breaking even it kind of defeats the point of making the move... players who sit and do nothing but sim base growth all server are better off, simming and doing nothing is more effective than making moves and fighting it out as things stand. you know this as well its why you will be against anything that could change that lol

I have and I agree about the risk to reward ratio, but feel it can only be addressed on the risk side, cluster invasions won't change even if you double base profits. It's to easy to defend, with detection and travel times allied clusters can come into to help block any landing. I like solutions like loot because they lower risk, people are naturally more risk averse then they are reward driven, so making leaving your galaxy a low risk proposition and taking crashes less of a all or nothing commitment will encourage people far more then slight profit margins increases.

[Mato]

It's to easy to defend, with detection and travel times allied clusters can come into to help block any landing.

This is just false, right now in Genesis the server's leading JGs are level 10, and for capital ships (DN/TI) the travel time to cross 2000 distance is around 32 hrs. The defender's ally from another cluster would need atleast that much notice to send reinforcements and block an invasion. Whereas I can launch my rather large 6 mil mobile fleet with 13 hr detection. The issue you mentioned only occurs in late-game AE when JGs become too fast and fleets become too big; server stagnation happens long before that.

[111]

It's to easy to defend, with detection and travel times allied clusters can come into to help block any landing.

This is just false, right now in Genesis the server's leading JGs are level 10, and for capital ships (DN/TI) the travel time to cross 2000 distance is around 32 hrs. The defender's ally from another cluster would need atleast that much notice to send reinforcements and block an invasion. Whereas I can launch my rather large 6 mil mobile fleet with 13 hr detection. The issue you mentioned only occurs in late-game AE when JGs become too fast and fleets become too big; server stagnation happens long before that.

It doesn't matter if they make it in time for the landing, not being able to guarantee securing the pile is enough that you can't go through, at least with current debris / recycler accounts a crash will likely take around 30~ hours to clear. Being able to be pushed off the pile by the defenders allies is the same as a loss.

[Mato]

A defending guild isn't going to suicide their mobile fleets for a chance of having their allies secure 1/3 of the debris pile 19 hours later. And in this example if the invaders bring 15% of their total fleet in RCs (instead of 10%) there would be no debris after 19 hours.

Also JG10 / 6 mil mobile fleet is quite late in the game. Cluster invasions are possible starting from JG6, when travel times are measured in days and detection times are measured in hours. Yet almost no one risks launching such cluster invasions.

Why are you pretending that interference from allied clusters is the main reason for stagnation? Anyone who has been involved in op planning in a serious V3 guild knows this is only a late-game issue.