Make the game looks more realistic, and reasonable

[Loka]

I have been playing Planetarion since Rounds 1-7, took a long break, and returned to the game a few rounds ago. Here are my thoughts and suggestions for Planetarion.

As I play Planetarion, a space war web game, I imagine myself as an Admiral of a space fleet. I hope the game statistics could be more reasonable and realistic to enhance the immersion, rather than focusing mainly on mathematical calculations.

Here are a few aspects I find problematic:

1)Ship Pricing and Battle Dynamics:
In my imagination, battleships are massive, spanning several kilometers in length and hundreds of meters in width, while fighters are agile ships around 10-20 meters long. It is puzzling that the price of three fighters equates to that of one battleship, and even more so that 3-4 fighters can take down a battleship (despite FI not targeting BS this round).

2)Targeting System:
The current targeting system seems illogical. It's hard to understand why a weapon can target both CO and BS but not FI or CR at the same time. It makes sense that an agile weapon could target small ships but may struggle to penetrate the heavy hulls of larger ships. However, it’s baffling that a weapon can damage CO but not FI and FR, yet can still damage BS. This inconsistency detracts from the game’s realism.

3)War System:
The war system feels simplistic and could benefit from enhancements to make it more honorable and impactful. Here are some brainstorming ideas:
a) Once war is declared, it should be mutual, not one-sided.
b) A war should continue until one side surrenders or loses a significant percentage of roids (e.g., 30-40%), triggering an automatic surrender. The winner could receive an EXP boost.
c) Other alliances should not interfere with ongoing wars to ensure fairness. Attacking an alliance at war should result in a 50% reduction in roids/XP gains.

4) Making XP More Useful:
XP should have more utility beyond ranking. Transforming XP into honor could incentivize players to avoid bullying weaker players and win wars honorably. This honor could lead to various in-game benefits such as faster research, construction, increased income, higher alertness, and discounts from ship dealers due to the player's honorable reputation.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Loka

In my imagination, battleships are massive, spanning several kilometers in length and hundreds of meters in width, while fighters are agile ships around 10-20 meters long. It is puzzling that the price of three fighters equates to that of one battleship, and even more so that 3-4 fighters can take down a battleship (despite FI not targeting BS this round).

While there are good reasons to avoid having very large differences in price between the smallest and biggest ship (technical issues, mostly EMP-related), I agree that this round's nearly-flat pricing is silly. I've seen the author claim it was to allow people to get millions of ships, which, again, I think is silly. Adding zeroes at the end of ship numbers doesn't make the game more fun, it just makes it harder to read. (Which number is bigger? 1236 or 992? Which number is bigger, 3769044876 or 849712307?)

Originally Posted by Loka

The current targeting system seems illogical. It's hard to understand why a weapon can target both CO and BS but not FI or CR at the same time. It makes sense that an agile weapon could target small ships but may struggle to penetrate the heavy hulls of larger ships. However, it’s baffling that a weapon can damage CO but not FI and FR, yet can still damage BS. This inconsistency detracts from the game’s realism.

In my stats I always tried to avoid targetting gaps. If T1 is Co, then preferably T2 is Fi or Fr. Sometimes that's not possible, though, and it's important to give stats makers as many tools as possible.

That said, there are "lore-friendly" reasons for a ship to be able to target T1 Fi and T2 Bs and nothing in between. It has a bunch of lasers to hit Fi, but those don't do shit against more heavily-armored ships. It also has a heavy torpedo launcher to hit Bs, but the torpedo is not maneuverable enough to hit smaller ships.

Originally Posted by Loka

a) Once war is declared, it should be mutual, not one-sided.

I've never understood why it isn't like this.

Originally Posted by Loka

b) A war should continue until one side surrenders or loses a significant percentage of roids (e.g., 30-40%), triggering an automatic surrender. The winner could receive an EXP boost.

Doesn't work. I'll just instantly surrender as soon as you declare war on me.

Originally Posted by Loka

c) Other alliances should not interfere with ongoing wars to ensure fairness. Attacking an alliance at war should result in a 50% reduction in roids/XP gains.

This is the opposite of the realism you try to achieve. In the real world, wars are not "fair". When two countries to go war, their allies get involved. That's what allies are for. Wars aren't honourable slugfests between two matched opponents. They are highly organized forms of theft wherein the strong prey on the weak.

Worse, this suggestion effectively makes top ranked alliances immune. The only way to effectively take down a top alliance is to gangbang them, but vice versa, casual alliances can be easily taken out by a single top alliance. Thus, this suggestions protects top ranked alliances while leaving casual alliances vulnerable. Muy, muy bad.

Originally Posted by Loka

XP should have more utility beyond ranking. Transforming XP into honor could incentivize players to avoid bullying weaker players and win wars honorably. This honor could lead to various in-game benefits such as faster research, construction, increased income, higher alertness, and discounts from ship dealers due to the player's honorable reputation.

I have no particular objection to these ideas, though the devil is in the details. I'm also not sure how it would particularly improve the game, though.

[Loka]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Doesn't work. I'll just instantly surrender as soon as you declare war on me.

>> it is just a brainstorming suggestion, should have more details to avoid abuse. since the chance the developer implement this is slim, so im not digging it too deep.
in case the developer really interested in this, i probably can go much further. the point you raise is really easy to solve, just set a min time. and a 5-10% XP and 5-10% roids gift to the winner when you surrender.

I have no particular objection to these ideas, though the devil is in the details. I'm also not sure how it would particularly improve the game, though.

just make XP slitghtly useful..
its weird that a stat is only used for ranking. but not benefiting the planet at all.