Regarding Sk´s
 

i tbh would have liked to try the Sk idea in action /sk´s in attack class\ and make this part of the game more interesting, however with the construction speed we have atm, its not the best idea as it just takes too long to rebuild, it hurts too much

what about having the construction time of damaged facilities reduced, so if you get covoped/skéd you can build those up faster

maybe 1/2 construction time or 2/3 or something (for destroyed structures)

or maybe even add the possibility to build up the cons right away with paying ressources, like tripple the normal cost and 1 tick to take to be rebuild (1 at a time) ?

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

just to add a little bit to your idea M0RPH3US. How about expanding security agents/guards etc to include engineers/repairers that could be used to repair buildings?

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

yeah why not, you buy/pay em like agents/guards
the more structures you have, the more engineers/repairers are needed or the longer it takes,
without em normal con speed and with em up to 75% faster rebuilding time

adds quite some coding i imagine though (both ideas) :p

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Sure, let's spend less resources on ships and more on hiring engineers! And while we're at it, we can also over-complicate the game with no real reason except SKs hurt!

Oh oh, plus we can add a whole new research tree dedicated to construction speed! Or maybe another one for research speed! Just in case someone gets covopped and losses research ticks!

Stop your whining. SKs in the main attack fleets will just add a bit more difficulty to the big planets staying on top. Isn't that what we really need? Or do we want another boring round?

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Posting on PD does not (always) equate to "whining". Just because you disagree is no reason to play the "whining card". Although, on this occasion I agree with your general opinion of these proposals - they're far too complex and are trying to address a problem which doesn't exist (and hopefully never will exist).

However, I disagree with your assessment of the people who would be affected by introducing SKs into the main attack fleets. The only people who would stand any chance of keeping their structures would be the (very) big planets.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

I must agree with ArcChas here. It will be the smaller planets who will suffer most of the damage done by sk's.
Big fenced up planets dont get landed on that often, because if they did get landed on often, they wouldn't be big...

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

1) no one was whining, but you are

2) its not the big guys who will be sked 5 waves in a row

3) the round wasnt boring cause there was no sk´s in attack fleets, it was rather boring cause a 150 man alliance and a 100 man alliance were naped from the start

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

150? Oh man, your intel must of been great. Better than Asc's on our own planets tbh .

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

I would also liked to have seen the proposed change in action, but frankly it was too rushed (much like everything always is in Planetarion).

A few things need to change before something like this will be accepted by the community though.

1) Reduced asteroid capture rate for fleets including structure killers.

2) Salvage from lost constructions.

3) Taking off from your idea; improved construction time if your planet has been sk'd...perhaps some sort of modifier like the stealth/alert system, whereby it adds construction points based upon total structures lost and gradually diminishes as you rebuild them.


I'm already looking at some of this stuff for next round, and I hope to get development running for r33 within two weeks.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

So before SK's are accepted into the community, we need to make them highly undeserable to actually send on attack missions due to reduced asteroid capping, then give the destroyed planet some extra resources and then give the destroyed planet extra construction points to rebuild quicker?

so essentially you're saying, the PA Team needs to spend time coding in features to make SK's utterly pointless so that no-one will build them.. for the community to accept them?

I would of liked to of seen the proposed change in action, but frankly half the active community dislikes change.. so we arnt allowed change.

Seriously.. im /facepalm'd here at you even remotly contemplating spending development time to make SK's useless so you can put them in the game?

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Don't complain at me about it.

The poll wasn't my idea, nor would I have even bothered with one. I liked the stats as they were, and a large part of the reason I took over 'management' of getting new stats was for oddball stuff like this. I could be the one taking the blame for shitty stats, rather than the PA Team. Oh well.

Appocomaster said they needed to be changed, so they were changed. Moving on from that, and keeping the "new player friendly" in mind, I came up with those three points.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Stop kidding yourself, its nothing to do with 'new player friendly'. Its that some people didnt want to get SK'd and lose alot of there constructions.

No new player goes over 50+ constructions (by new player, i mean non-irc person, new to the game), no new player would even care that there constructions are faster after getting SK'd.. all they'd see is that they lost constructions, no new player cares about afew extra k salvage from construction losses.. when they lost there entire fleet as well (as they're new/inactive), no new player cares about reduced asteroid capping.. (that just makes sending SK's redudant, as if its a choice between roids and sk's, it'll always be roids).

Dont be nieve, people are shit.. they pretend to be arguing for someone eles's cause but instead are campaigning for themselves.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

I'm not kidding myself, nor am I being naive.

I know exactly why things were changed because it's the same almost every round the stats or pertinent features change: people don't like something, so they bitch and moan about it until it gets changed. r5 armor was increased mid-round. r6, they hated races and the new stats. r8 it was overburn. r10 it was PAX. You probably weren't around for any of that, but how about the r31 Harpy last-minute change because xan was "overpowered", or the stats last round for that matter.

I'm about to the point where, if I'm going to be involved in development, I'm just not going to listen to anyone and do whatever the hell I think is best.

In fact, that sounds wonderful.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

If you're on 150 constructions and you lose 15 of those (the maximum), that equates to a whopping 63675 value worth of value (if it had been invested in ships), of which, under normal circumstances, salvage can't realistically grant people back more than about a third, both for balancing and counter-abuse reasons; that's utterly negligble.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

I'd like to see SK's die when they land.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

ricoshay, what planets do you prefer to attack? the top planets whom always get def, or the mid size, lower size planets that are easier to land on?

With structurekillers in main attack fleet, do you REALLY think that top planets would get LESS defense?

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

So in other words most people think SK are a bad idea all together. Then maybe a complete change is needed.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Depends, if my alliance is at war than I'll try and pick the biggest targets possible and setup teamups on them. If we're cruising for roids, I'll pick the smallest targets within my bash.

As for your secod paragraph, the big planets usually get more defense indeed, so using SKs in the attacks on them might cause some over-covering from their side. Logically, that opens more space for others to land attacks on the guy's alliance and/or galaxy.

Those being said, I like the change. SKs should indeed have a bigger role in this game and adding them to the main attack fleets would be beneficial. Just my 2 cents.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Good idea Ent. I disagree with salvage for buildings, but using an engineer (C&C) style to 'repair' a killed building would be a good thing. Lets say the player has 3 ticks to restore a building before it is unrepairable and the engineer 'dies'.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

I would like to see ships that kill security guards when they land.

Once you are invunerable to COV-OPs, that is it. We need to find a way to get rid of security guards/reduce alert via other ways than covert-ops.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

the problem with actually "repairing" structures is that it assumes people will rebuild the same constructions they already had, which in most cases will be incorrect.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Then greendogs idea would come into play
then the building would disappear and allow for the building of whatever else.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

At the risk of adding any credibility to these ideas I'd just like to point out that 3 ticks may be enough time for the (hyper)active players but it would be useless for (most of) the "ordinary" players.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

This is a good point actually. We could have SK's kill up to x% of the Security guards as well. I like this, as it points out a flaw in the game mechanics, let's give it more thought.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

The whole drama about SKs is hilarious.

I hope all the complaining whingers realise that people won't build structure killers as they do not benefit your planet at all.

The only people who build them will be those who have a specific aim in mind; to **** someone else over. Which they can do with any class of ship.

The only people who'll use Structure Killers in their proper normal attack fleets are those who think it's funny (hi! thats me!) or haven't grasped the stats properly.

Noone who wants to play for a decent planet rank will bother to send structure killers with their normal attack fleet. They're inefficent, they die easily, they lower your cap % (value based), they will make your fleet more of a threat so more likely to get defence, and they also don't neutralise any ships on landing at the planet.

Seriously. This whole SK argument is so pointless it's funny.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Unfortunately there are far too many idio...... sorry - I mean "people" who think it's funny to wipe out other players. And far too few who would make the effort to leave the SKs at home when not attacking an enemy.

I agree that the argument is pointless though (now that the idea has been shelved).

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Planet value. But at least you've grasped the stats, that's something.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Thanks man!

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

Right. That's what their minions do.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

What you totally fail to realize is that its FUN.
Some people get a kick out of stealing roids.
Some people get a kick out of stealing ships.
Some people get a kick out of havoc-ing the granny out of some poor planet.
Some people get a kick out of ending peoples rounds through a well timed fleet catch.

And some people like landing structure killers - esp. on enemy scanners or dist whores!

And who are you to say that they shouldn't have that fun?

Sure it sucks when you are on the receiving end of it, but if you have never done something to another player in your PA career that resulted in them cursing you, swearing at you and insinuating horrible things about your mothers honor, then in my very very humble opinion you are doing it WRONG.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

I don't fail to realise any of these things - I know exactly how much fun it is (can be) going over the BRep of a successful landing. :)

But I'm not the sort of player that we need to be trying to persuade to stick with the game - I've played every single round since I first signed up. It's the casual players we need to encourage to stick around - and making their experiences of the game worse isn't the way to do it.

We're just about to start this round with less than 1200 accounts signed up - surely you must realise that having "fun" at the expense of other players is counter-productive.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

:facepalm: The entire game is based on having fun at the expense of other players. That is my point. Not mixing things up from time to time though, makes it incredibly stale for EVERYONE.

Re: Regarding Sk´s
 

You can't forget though that at the end of the day the people that run this are a business, and are here to make money. Unfortunately there is no way to please absolutely everyone, so they must therefore do what will keep the largest number of people here, and newer players that have to constantly worry about if their structures will be repeatedly hammered into the ground will NOT be interested in coming back for subsequent rounds of similar treatment.