Planetarion Forums

mathematician · 12 Mar 2009, 16:50

have roids age (become depleted)

alternative A)
- each roid produces 250 resource per tick
- each tick, roid production decreases by 1, capped (say) at 100
- for each capped roid, roid production increases by 1, capped at 250

alternative B)
- each planet loses (say) 0.25% of its roids (rounded down) per tick
(this means a planet under 400 roids is immune to this)

both alternatives encourage large planets to attack (and not fencesit), or its rulers will lose out on resource income.

RuBBeR · 12 Mar 2009, 17:13

fencesitters still cap roids though, so dunno what this is going to accomplish.

Light · 12 Mar 2009, 17:30

and fencesitters usually cap more as they can go n00b podding instead of hitting planets which are highly likely to get defence.

Mzyxptlk · 12 Mar 2009, 19:36

As said by the above posters, this suggestion doesn't punish people who cap roids (roid racers, pnappers, farmers). Instead, it punishes people who don't (ie, noobs and team players).

In short, this idea is retarded.

Zeyi · 12 Mar 2009, 21:59

According to Mz, the mental capacity of this forum is depleting rapidly.

Mzyxptlk · 12 Mar 2009, 22:08

That is not at all what I am saying, but whatever makes you happy.

Linkie · 12 Mar 2009, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light

and fencesitters usually cap more as they can go n00b podding instead of hitting planets which are highly likely to get defence.

IT'S ONLY PODDING IF YOU ATTACK WITH PODS ONLY

CBA · 12 Mar 2009, 23:25

I like fencing

Vladel · 13 Mar 2009, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathematician

have roids age (become depleted)

alternative A)
- each roid produces 250 resource per tick
- each tick, roid production decreases by 1, capped (say) at 100
- for each capped roid, roid production increases by 1, capped at 250

alternative B)
- each planet loses (say) 0.25% of its roids (rounded down) per tick
(this means a planet under 400 roids is immune to this)

both alternatives encourage large planets to attack (and not fencesit), or its rulers will lose out on resource income.

Oh shut up

Holding roids is a skill in itself why should big planets be punished?

CBA · 13 Mar 2009, 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vladel

Oh shut up

Holding roids is a skill in itself why should big planets be punished?

For once, Vladel is right!

Zaejii · 13 Mar 2009, 06:20

fencesitting is more a problem in the community than it is in how the game is coded. if people and their alliances are going to allow it, then there really isn't much else you can do except find enough people that disagree with it and attack the snot out of them.

Auto · 13 Mar 2009, 07:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathematician

have roids age (become depleted)

alternative A)
- each roid produces 250 resource per tick
- each tick, roid production decreases by 1, capped (say) at 100
- for each capped roid, roid production increases by 1, capped at 250

alternative B)
- each planet loses (say) 0.25% of its roids (rounded down) per tick
(this means a planet under 400 roids is immune to this)

both alternatives encourage large planets to attack (and not fencesit), or its rulers will lose out on resource income.

I love the idea

Your roids growing old and ineffective

But it need to follow the roid, so if someone stealing a old roid, the production stays at it's "age"

I also suggest that planets whit roidcount below average get a roiding bonus, let's say cap 1 roid get 1 free when attacking equal sized planets, and cap 1 roid get 2 free when attacking planets 2 times your size.

BTW, I also belive in Santa and the Easter bunny, I have long talks whit them every year to solve this wonderfull worlds big problems whit bad date's on christmas turkey and easter eggs

Villeh · 13 Mar 2009, 07:44

There should be a 'Roid Bank' and a 'Ship Bank', and at the start of the round each planet gets a starting bonus from the banks eg. 1000 of each ship that race can build and 500 roids.
Then when planet A attacks planet B and cap 50 roids, planet A has to pay the 'roid bank' a 50 roid fee of 50 roids, they are entered into the roid banks holdings for distribution around the universe as later 'bonus awards'., planet B that just lost 50 roids will of course be awarded a 'bank bonus' at this time of 50 roids, to compensate for the loss of his roids.
Same principle will of course also apply to lost/gained ships (this is where the 'Ship Bank' comes into play), anything else would just be unfair!

With this setup Fencesitting would clearly not be an issue anymore.

Heartless · 13 Mar 2009, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaejii

fencesitting is more a problem in the community than it is in how the game is coded. if people and their alliances are going to allow it, then there really isn't much else you can do except find enough people that disagree with it and attack the snot out of them.

It is only partly a problem in thie community. The main problem is simply that war in this game is not beneficial. From a purely economical point of view the return-on-investment is utterly bad in times of war - unless your opponents are stupidly crashing for your roids. Which means that in war you cannot actively increase your profit, but very actively decrease it.

Gate · 13 Mar 2009, 09:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Instead, it punishes people who don't (ie, noobs and team players).

Exactly.

Someone in my galaxy is quite large and is competing for a high ranking. However, they have 3 fleet defended for the last 3-4 days. Does their commitment to teamwork mean they should be punished?

The idea's interesting (it reminds me of Dawn of War strategic point depletion, heh), but it doesn't achieve its stated aim of stopping fencesitting. Since fencesitters often cap more roids than those who defend their friends regularly.

lokken · 13 Mar 2009, 09:47

Fencesitting is a legitimate strategy and shouldn't be stopped.

Mek · 13 Mar 2009, 10:01

the onus to stop fence sitting is with the alliances themselves. The reason fence sitting galaxies come about is not the result of the players, it is the result of the alliances who do not hit member galaxies.

This idea punishes the players when it does nothing to solve the root cause of the issue

MrLobster · 13 Mar 2009, 13:11

It doesnt help that the galaxies are so big, more chance of fence sitting.

robban1 · 13 Mar 2009, 17:01

easy make an war option ingame that you can only att target you are at war with and only def those youre allie/napped to even ingal, problem solved