[Light]

Incoming Wall of text:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

If I attempt to reply to every comment here, the reply will be so long that I doubt many would reply.
Firstly, whilst I don't believe that all these criticisms are valid, some fair few are. What the game needs (and hasn't had since Round 10 or so) is one or more full time developers (though coders are also nice ). Whilst this in no way weakens the criticisms placed against Planetarion, it might be worth considering.
We haven't presented one vision and tried to push everything to conform to that. That's a fault I can't defend against. I'm not a visionary, and few people have submitted visions (JBG springs to mind), let alone ones that are feasably codable with our current coding resources (Cin, as well as myself infrequently). I'd gladly step aside, but in 4 years I've found no one willing to take the position of head of development, and few to even be around as a deputy!

Dont mis-interperet my post, it wasnt intended as direct criticism to you or the other members of the PA Team. It was more aimed at how you make the choice to what to implement/change or ignore. I may be wrong but it seems that when someone makes good suggestion on what could improve or add to the game (and its feasable to code) then you'll go ahead and code it. The problem with this, is that over-time this has resulted in a bloated game with some things overly complicated and in the game for the sake of it. While the point i was trying to make was that you (or hopefully zPeti) should take responsibility for the game and outline a vision of what you want Planetarion to be and the features coded around that vision.

Metal/Crystal/Eonium: Fuel cost was removed for aforementioned reasons. Scanning for asteroids was removed to make it more simple for new players, and to remove some randomness. The same is the reason why initiation costs were changed. Metal/Crystal/Eonium were kept to keep some variety between the races. We could have removed them, but that seemed to be oversimplifying (and would really have demanded one race, which, to be honest, we don't have the coding time for at the moment).
Anyway, all the other changes were for making things simple, which you seem to support in the formulae.

I agree with the changes dont get me wrong what i was trying to imply was that you took out some features but didnt replace them with a valid alternative. I dont want Metal/Crystal/Eonium to be removed from, i just want them to mean something again.

On the topic of initiating roids though, i will say that i'd love to have it returned back to METAL being the only resource for initiating roids. This is the kind of feature i like, as it adds a new level of tactics and strategy into the game without making it complicated. To the new player, they understand instantly without having to refer to a manual that they need Metal to initiate more roids and to the more experienced player, he/she can plan or make strategys on what they will think is the best way to initiate there roids. It also changes the element for races (which you pointed out) and makes each race and ship costs mean something, as now you'd initiate more crystal roids if you're resources cost more etc.

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...2&postcount=22
^^ is abit more in depth on the changes i'd suggest for the resources.

The production/research/construction changes were to make things more interesting. Research queuing has been found useful by some, but I think a large number of people would argue that the possible change in production times has had a fairly significant impact on the game. The formulae are complicated, but not required unless you want to make extensive plans - all times have a current completion tick on them. As Mz has suggested, we can for example clutter up the population page with predictions on how long current research / construction / etc will change.

I like research queing. The point with research i was trying to make across was that things have been added to the game for the sake of it.. Formula's should be as clean and as simple as possible while still achieving there goal (adding new elements to the game).

If you want to get down to what i'd directly suggest, i'd say get rid of research centers or change the way they're implemented. The reason for this, is that at the moment you're 1st/6th/11th/16th construction is always one and its not exactly clear that this is what you should be doing from just looking at the construction page. You should steer clear from things that you have no alternative, that when someone asks 'what should i be doing', every single responce will say the same thing i.e. its required.

If you want to add variety in constructions, then you should try and make things as equal as possible.. so that people actually have a choice, rather than a set path. What you should be aiming for, is that when someone asks on the forums 'what constructions should i build?', every single reply comes back with a different responce (or at least, there is no 'right' answer).

I'd argue that the alliance tax, alliance scan sharing, alliance defence upgrade, alliance attack upgrade, alliance fund, alliance intel, alliance merging, new quest system and bcalc were all useful additions to the game, and those which helped those less experienced most of all. There were issues with a few of the introductions (noticeably the new quest system), but are they all overly complicated or 'retarded' ?

Sorry, i shouldnt of said all. There are obviously some things added to the game which are good for the new player or less active player. Especially the quest system and battlecalc.

Because they were finished late and adding them in late would have caused even more problems

Then why add them at all?

The e-mail sent when you sign up contains lots of useful information, before you even log in to the game. It's not my fault you don't read it

no-one reads it

Experience? When we had too much, it caused hugely unbalanced gameplay, but it's still there and still benefits combat situations - it's the main source of experience.

I know the reasons but it still doesnt change the fact that in this WAR game, the way to win is by fencing and nap'ing and not going to war. The combat code needs to be changed to make hitting big planets (actives) more profitable than hitting small planets (new players).

not everyone does this, especially not near the end of the game. It's opportunity cost. The average amount of res labs in the top 500 is 5, with the most common being 2/4/3/5 (in that order), and 350 having 5 or less.

Yes, it changes when you get towards the end of the game but at the start it is the case. Then once you get


**EDIT** Sorry, the questions in my rant arnt aimed as direct suggestions or things which 100% should be changed. They was just off the top of my head on things zPeti should be asking himself when he decides on he aims for Planetation to be. So there is no point going through each question and defending the points in each, as they are obsolete until zPeti decides on his vision for PA.

I fail to see a summary of what Light is trying to get from her rant though - all I can get out of it is "remove things that I find too complicated when I read the formula page of the manual" and "remove things that I don't think have a point".
We could remove the population counter, as I'm not sure that's going anywhere these days. It doesn't seem to be going in a direction you want anyway, and your ego is big enough we have to pay attention to you :/

The main point of my rant was to stop adding new features for the sake of it. First decide on your vision for Planetarion and your goal, then go through each of its current features and make sure that they fit in with this goal (and that they are actually adding to the game the way you intended).

Alot of the 'questions' i asked in that post, i personally dont feel need tweaking/deleted or simplifying.. Just that they are the sort of things zPeti should be asking himself.