Base reduction costs for established servers

[BLACK WIDOW]

There is nothing wrong with being an avaricious money grubber and it is obvious that the move to change established rules for older servers is for this purpose. Accounts that may have once been upgraded but are now free accounts will have no option but to pay to upgrade the old account to keep up with the few players who are upgraded to stay competitive with a player who will very soon gain the ability to build 4-6 new bases at no cost.
I am unsure if you have thought this through. Free accounts (on older servers) will feel cheated at this fundamental game changing rule which is being undertaken for the soul purpose of acquiring additional funding from older servers to the detriment of players who have loyally stayed with the game. It wouldnt be a stretch to think these players who are using free accounts on older (more or less 'dead') servers will feel unfairly treated and unable to compete on the old servers and just delete their accounts and be less willing to play new servers as the change is basically a kick in the teeth to the players of this game. Its a fundamental change that I doubt anyone asked for.
My suggestion is to give players 3-5 days upgrade so that the free account players may build the new bases as their upgraded friends and enemies can and have at least the ability to try and keep up. You will still get plenty of new upgrades out of this game change because a lot of players will want to build structures on their new bases that only upgraded accounts can.

[-Catalyst-]

A free short upgrade to build the new bases would make good sense. At least will be able to build the bases up to free standards after that and lots will prob still upgrade to continue upgrading the bases.

[Mato]

This change is bad for players in version 3/3.5 servers who made decisions based on the old costs.

For instance I produced a top fleet in Genesis so that I can try making moves against players with less fleet, for this I have paid millions of credits in fleet maintenance and only have base 13. Other players decided to produce less fleet and have base 15/16 as a result. This change greatly benefits them by making it very easy to catch up in fleet.

I don't mind changes to dead/trophy servers but please exclude the version 3.5 servers. If the change is implemented I will have to delete my 3.5 accounts since they are no longer competitive. If you are determined to implement the change in v3.5, please wait for 18-24 months until the servers are dead.

[KaHaR]

This change is bad for players in version 3/3.5 servers who made decisions based on the old costs.

For instance I produced a top fleet in genesis so that I can try making moves against players with less fleet, for this I have paid millions of credits in fleet maintenence and only have base 13. Other players decided to produce less fleet and have base 15/16 as a result. This change only benefits them by making it very easy to catch up.

I don't mind changes to dead/trophy servers but please exclude the version 3.5 servers. If the change is implemented I will have to delete my 3.5 accounts since they are no longer competitive. If you are determined to implement the change in v3.5, please wait for 12 or 18 months until the servers are dead.

Discounts
13: 100,000 cred.
14: 450,000 cred.
15: 1,450,000 cred.
16: 4,950,000 cred.

New costs
Base 13: 400k
Base 14: 650k
Base 15: 1M
Base 16: 1.5M
Base 17: 2.5M
Base 18: 4M
Base 19: 6.5M
Base 20: 10M

The top fleet guys in Genesis sit around 5.5-6K econ so I will use that as my number ...

So, now you can get to base 16 with 3.15M credits or 24 (34 with full FM) days worth of econ simming or even faster if you use your fleet. It makes it easier for you to catch up to their base count too.

However, we both know that simmers gonna sim sim sim and your fleet lead is safe.

[Mato]

The top fleet guys in Genesis sit around 5.5-6K econ so I will use that as my number ...

So, now you can get to base 16 with 3.15M credits or 24 (34 with full FM) days worth of econ simming or even faster if you use your fleet. It makes it easier for you to catch up to their base count too.

However, we both know that simmers gonna sim sim sim and your fleet lead is safe.

You underestimate the effect of FM. Players who simmed economy paid millions of credits less FM than the players (like me) who simmed top fleets. Even if I successfully manage to turn my fleet into credits, I won't make enough credits to catch up to the accounts which never paid FM.

And please don't ask why players produce large fleets and pay FM. Invasions are only possible if you outfleet your opponent, so players who wish to make moves are forced to produce large fleets and pay FM.

If this change is implemented it will be far easier for the econ simmers to catch up in fleet, than for the fleet simmers to catch up in econ. Changing the game balance mid-way through a competitive server is a terrible idea.

your fleet lead is safe.

Fleet lead is only safe on a dead server. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that Genesis is like Beta. Top fleets on Genesis are less than 2 months of production at 6k prod cap. Recent servers are still competitive and there is no guarantee that I can maintain my fleet lead.

[Sparti]

if this gets implemented on G3 it's pretty much game over for that server

[KaHaR]

The top fleet guys in Genesis sit around 5.5-6K econ so I will use that as my number ...

So, now you can get to base 16 with 3.15M credits or 24 (34 with full FM) days worth of econ simming or even faster if you use your fleet. It makes it easier for you to catch up to their base count too.

However, we both know that simmers gonna sim sim sim and your fleet lead is safe.

You underestimate the effect of FM. Players who sim sim simmed economy paid millions of credits less FM than the players who simmed top fleets. Even if I successfully manage to turn my fleet into credits, I won't make enough credits to catch up to the accounts which never paid FM.

And please don't ask why players produce large fleets and pay FM. Invasions are only possible if you outfleet your opponent, so players who wish to make moves are forced to produce large fleets and pay FM.

If this change is implemented it will be far easier for the econ simmers to catch up in fleet, than for the fleet simmers to catch up in econ. Changing the game balance mid-way through a competitive server is a terrible idea.

your fleet lead is safe.

Fleet lead is only safe on a dead server. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that Genesis is like Beta. Top fleets on Genesis are less than 2 months of production at 6k prod cap. Recent servers are still competitive and there is no guarantee that I can maintain my fleet lead.

If the top fleet acct in genesis had FM for the entire time they were playing, at their current econ, they would have lost ~6M (5500*.3*24*153) credits to FM.

As mentioned before, the cost to sim three new bases from econ alone would still put you ahead of the econ simmer in terms of fleet while raising your prod/econ/FM cap which would further your fleet lead.

Someone who chooses to sim without FM will always be able to quickly catch up … with cheaper bases, you’ll be able to close the gap (#bases) faster than they will (# fleet), though.

[111]

This change is bad for players in version 3/3.5 servers who made decisions based on the old costs.

For instance I produced a top fleet in genesis so that I can try making moves against players with less fleet, for this I have paid millions of credits in fleet maintenence and only have base 13. Other players decided to produce less fleet and have base 15/16 as a result. This change only benefits them by making it very easy to catch up.

I don't mind changes to dead/trophy servers but please exclude the version 3.5 servers. If the change is implemented I will have to delete my 3.5 accounts since they are no longer competitive. If you are determined to implement the change in v3.5, please wait for 12 or 18 months until the servers are dead.

AE has always been an open ended game and changes mid server can make things more interesting, with an attitude like this you would still have some servers without 4 hangar frigates and no tachyon. I'd rather wizard was willing to make changes to keep things interesting and the new base rush in G will at least add a bit of fun

[Sparti]

AE has always been an open ended game and changes mid server can make things more interesting, with an attitude like this you would still have some servers without 4 hangar frigates and no tachyon. I'd rather wizard was willing to make changes to keep things interesting and the new base rush in G will at least add a bit of fun

Im all for Wizard making changes to the game, even if they are bad at least it shows there is some thought process and growth to the dynamics of the game. But changing the goal posts on an active server where well over half the server are going to get screwed over by it?

i get why your ok with the change, it plays right into you play style of just simming out bases but those that build fleet are pretty much screwed if this goes on V3 servers, especially G3. For older servers like 1.5 and 2.0 i can understand it will add something and may breathe life into some of them, not saying its a good idea but i understand the thought process of some wanting to see it happen.

but V3 servers this should not happen, or at least not V3.5 Essentially spent 6 months(G3) playing to a set of dynamics for the game and having it changed underneath you which complete negates and now puts you at a quite a big disadvantage

[naethel]

As someone who is not playing the last G3 server i feel this is overall a good change, since the benefits are evident and being able to lay the same amount of bases as the new 4.0 upcoming version while playing a different "flavor" of the game seems honestly nice for us and for wiz. I also think that the overall price change may actually level down the differences between people with high amount of bases vs those who have much less, in general.

For what it's worth, i may be tilted by it if i was playing G3, but tbh i don't actually see it as an argument big enough to block the change for the other 30+ or idk how many servers. Maybe delay it for g3 but i don't know if this would change much, the simmers may have a couple more bases but the non simmers should actually have an easier time to catch them up in terms of bases. Still i'm not playing G3 so i don't know actually, the people playing it are surely the best judges, but i chimed in to say that i play other 3.0 servers and i'm personally fine with it being implemented there, but i can understand people playing an active server that hasn't been decided yet being tilted by it since in that case it is a matter of deciding when it's time to peak and exploit your econ with prod, and timing it badly because of a base update may lead to a bad outcome without deserving it.

[Mato]

As mentioned before, the cost to sim three new bases from econ alone would still put you ahead of the econ simmer in terms of fleet while raising your prod/econ/FM cap which would further your fleet lead.

Someone who chooses to sim without FM will always be able to quickly catch up … with cheaper bases, you’ll be able to close the gap (#bases) faster than they will (# fleet), though.

A player with 15 bases gets a 1.45m credit discount, which is a free base 16, while a player with 13 bases (like me) gets a paltry 100k credits. Please don't tell me that I should now sit and sim base 16 while paying 30% hourly FM. When I made the decision to produce a large fleet after base 13, my calculation was that v3 servers die early and that the payoff time for base 14 would be longer than the remaining lifetime of the server. These calculations were based on the v3 base costs. If Genesis had v4 base costs from the beginning, I would have obtained more bases with 0% FM before producing a large fleet.

If v4 base costs are back-ported to Genesis, players who overpaid for bases have suddenly made the correct decision, while players (like me) who produced large fleets with less bases have made the wrong decision. It would be a major setback since we missed out on several months of returns from base 14/15, and we also have to wait longer to get those bases since hourly incomes are 30% less.

As previously stated I don't care about old trophy servers such as beta/ceti, it is OK if players on those servers are given incentives to upgrade. But I sincerely hope the game developer does not break newer servers like Genesis with some life left in them.

[Brogren]

As mentioned before, the cost to sim three new bases from econ alone would still put you ahead of the econ simmer in terms of fleet while raising your prod/econ/FM cap which would further your fleet lead.

Someone who chooses to sim without FM will always be able to quickly catch up … with cheaper bases, you’ll be able to close the gap (#bases) faster than they will (# fleet), though.

A player with 15 bases gets a 1.45m credit discount, which is a free base 16, while a player with 13 bases (like me) gets a paltry 100k credits. Please don't tell me that I should now sit and sim base 16 while paying 30% hourly FM. When I made the decision to produce a large fleet with base 13, my calculation was that v3 servers die early and that the payoff time for base 14 would be longer than the remaining lifetime of the server. These calculations were based on the v3 base costs. If Genesis had v4 base costs from the beginning, I would have obtained more bases with 0% FM before producing a large fleet.

I think this is the important bit, changing things that people already decided to spend/not spend credits on for already existing servers is something that in my opinion should be avoided at all costs. The only exception should be if it is required to make the game function for everyone new or old(like the ftr swarm nerf protecting small/new accs).

[KaHaR]

As mentioned before, the cost to sim three new bases from econ alone would still put you ahead of the econ simmer in terms of fleet while raising your prod/econ/FM cap which would further your fleet lead.

Someone who chooses to sim without FM will always be able to quickly catch up … with cheaper bases, you’ll be able to close the gap (#bases) faster than they will (# fleet), though.

A player with 15 bases gets a 1.45m credit discount, which is a free base 16, while a player with 13 bases (like me) gets a paltry 100k credits. Please don't tell me that I should now sit and sim base 16 while paying 30% hourly FM. When I made the decision to produce a large fleet with base 13, my calculation was that v3 servers die early and that the payoff time for base 14 would be longer than the remaining lifetime of the server. These calculations were based on the v3 base costs. If Genesis had v4 base costs from the beginning, I would have obtained more bases with 0% FM before producing a large fleet.

If v4 base costs are backported to Genesis, players who overpaid for bases have suddenly made the correct decision while players (like me) who produced large fleets have made the wrong decision. Not only did we miss out on several months of returns from base 14/15, we are also forced to wait longer to get those bases since hourly incomes are 30% less.

As I said before I don't care about old trophy servers such as beta/ceti, it is OK if players on those servers are given incentives to upgrade. But I sincerely hope the game developer does not break newer servers like Genesis with some life left in them.

I think you are better off with having the change sooner, but if y’all want a delay just for 3.5, I think that should be OK, too.

I think this is the important bit, changing things that people already decided to spend/not spend credits on for already existing servers is something that in my opinion should be avoided at all costs. The only exception should be if it is required to make the game function for everyone new or old(like the ftr swarm nerf protecting small/new accs).

FT swarms are handled differently between v1.5 and other servers.

[Brogren]

FT swarms are handled differently between v1.5 and other servers.

Point being?

[KaHaR]

Point being?

The only exception should be if it is required to make the game function for everyone new or old(like the ftr swarm nerf protecting small/new accs).

This statement is wrong—what was your point, here?