Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt
I see your point though I still believe it's down to people's fears of losing rather than just the game itself.
I said I was happy with how we (by we I mean Ascendancy) are playing this rd, not the nap fest that's going on. The napfest between the top alliances is just plain boring.
|
I am of the opinion that the game itself is too centred around fleet value contributing to score. What is deemed success in the game, having a bigger score than others, is too dependant on retaining your fleet and not losing it to probability lands.
The game lacks risk and reward, it's actually invariably more profitable to never risk your ships in combat and unfortunately every time some discovers a way to obtain score than isn't fleetcentric that method gets nerfed out of the game.
The only true way to obtain a profitable war scenario is to detach value completely from score, instead relying on constructions, asteroids and xp. Making ships an expendable commodity used to increase these without impacting ones score or base ability to increase score. Then someone can truly 'wage war' on another with risk and reward without worrying that one slip up can ruin 800 ticks of gain.
With a more diverse, and uncompletable tech tree, construction infrastructure et al you could create more diverse planets and different strategies, make emp, steal, cloak all researchable by everyone but not fully obtainable by anyone. This could lead us back to one race, different plans and the lack of need for stat makers. One core set of stats and plethora of bolt ons to make each player unique.
It surely cannot be that hard to code as the base elements are already there, just not set apart and customisable.