Reply to Thread
Return to thread view
Return to main page

Forum: SC Development & Design
Thread: Could we try the personnel coffer thingy PLEASE?
Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2004-12-10 10:15:25
The current system doesnt work, there is still coffer abuse.
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-10 10:33:40
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-10 10:48:08
Post by: Little Sister(34495)
2004-12-13 06:56:32
I agree, we need to get personal coffers. That will stop feeding.
Post by: Opacus Mortu(61923)
2004-12-13 06:57:33
I am only goign to agree cuz i want people to stop complaining, i have no idea wut i'm agreeing to....but i agree.....Thank you.....peace
Post by: golchasr(44184)
2004-12-13 06:57:48
I personally think that we should have personal coffers for the minerals. The fleet that has to be donated with the minerals should become fed fleet.
Post by: Kubala(25078)
2004-12-13 07:01:14
I just wish it went alot slower (not nessecarialy ap wise). What turns alot of people off is how you lose everything after every run. you know. What I'd REALLY like is something like Archmage. I was actually looking for a replacement for that when I found PLIT. Archmage was sort of slow, had good complexity. yeah.
Post by: renagade24(48895)
2004-12-13 07:02:00
single player coffers are a great idea, would make the game more interesting and stop feeding other players to booast their scores
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-13 07:06:09
I believe that the number one empire on the empire list shouldnt be able to receive Minerals.

IF that happened, the number one player would only get higher through failed attacks and take downs.

THEN, if he got high your fed, could work together feeding each other till they could take that empire down.

But of course when they hit number 1. they can no longer be fed minerals/power.

Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2004-12-13 08:10:58
but if you and i were in a fed, you were #1 and i were #2, we could feed each other and play leapfrog the whole round.... if we had personnal coffers the only possable way i could give you mins would be if i wasnt in your fed, and i attacked you.
Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2004-12-13 08:15:39
and maybe a limit to set how many attacks you can recieve from one player would be nice too. just a thought
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-13 08:32:32
Sigh then we could just feed a player to a great height by attacking them badly.....

but because we cant feed anyone else.... we couldnt ever reach them
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-13 08:33:53
it would be near impossible to leapfrog lol, the only way would be via attacking someone below you. Attacking and defending are part of the game, it would mean, besides once there half ur score. u cant attack them any more,
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-13 08:35:07
MAYBE I need to state, there would only ever be one empire that couldnt be fed, the one in the NUMBER ONE position of the game. not the feederaton but the game ranking. that no 1 spot
Post by: simstar(98)
2004-12-21 04:00:10
I still believe that feeding should not be a part of this game and we must do everything in our power to stop it.

I actually agree with kubala on the way the game goes to fast. Ships should not be destroyed so easily. How ever they should also not be so easily gained. If we did make ships stronger there would be less minerals floating around which would mean that less would be able to be built as quickly. I would be very interested to see how this would work out. I prepose that peter create another test server like we used to have for the changes he made, this would only have to run for a few days and then we can all make a decision on whether the change should be made or not.

Also i think that there should be personal coffers and fed coffers, however the fed coffers can only be used by the fed leader to build fed fleet. As this would be the case i prepose that we make fed fleet slightly stronger than it is now. Also i prepose that we make the personal coffers smaller, say half the size of the fed coffers.

However convincing peter to make any of these changes will require more than just my opinion and beliefs. I agree also with the many complaints i have had about the last change we made to SC. It is a crappy system by donating mins and fed fleet at the same time. However i hope you see why peter and i agreed on those changes. This is because peter and i agreed that feeding should not be an integral part of the game that when used meant a much easier way to victory. Also i had discussed the issue with many players who felt that feeding was "ruining" the game. Therefore peter and i tried to come up with a solution.

Wow this turned into another long message.... By the way what happened to the old forum? I must have missed that one.
Post by: simstar(98)
2004-12-21 14:23:23
I have been thinking on these issues a bit and have disscussed them with ex and spart. Here are the two main ideas we all agreed could benefit the game and improve its playability.

1) We increase the strength of ships. By this i mean that ships are not destroyed so easily. This will have many benefits. Firstly and most importantly this will lead to lower xp gains as less ships are destroyed. This will also mean that less minerals can be gained which will lead to slower growth. This will therefore stabilise the board more, we will not have so much of a yoyo effect. Therefore no longer will you build up your fleet and then wake up the next morning and have less than what you started with the previous day.

This however lead to those that are good at the game to stay at the top end of the board, but not nessesarily mean that one person will stay in the number one spot. As the scores will be closer and mins harder to obtain it would be harder for someone to get to the top and be miles ahead of everyone else in terms of score. However this means that noobs will not get put off the game so quickly, the main thing that turns them away is when they build up their empire and then have it completely destroyed. With this change the progression from lower scores to higher score will be slower and more structured. Therefore more playable.

2) We all know how we have been having trouble with fed coffers and what not over the last few rounds. Problems with feeding lead changes being made that did not do a lot of good for the game in general. The change i prepose is thus:

Firstly every player gets a personal coffers of 2k of each mins and power. There is still a 10% charge but no longer a mandatory ship donation. However this 10% is not just lost as it has always been. This 10% is then put into the fed coffers. Which the fed leader has sole control over, the fed coffers can then be used to build fed fleet and only fed fleet. There would still be the same cap on these coffers of 10k of each.

This will result in no mineral feeding through the coffers as there has been in the past. It may also result in there being more of a fed fleet being built in more feds. This would happen because once the fed coffers are full the 10% that is being taken from players when they donate will be lost and therefore wasted. Obviously there is no benefit to wasting minerals and power, so these would be used to build the fed fleet.

I would like people to criticise and discuss my first two suggestions. I would however also like to ask people NOT to make their own suggestions and get away from what i am trying to discuss, if you have a suggestion please use another thread. Thank you for reading.

Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2004-12-21 15:01:26
ok, ok. sounds worth trying out, maybe with a few tweeks on it, the game will flow smoother..
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-21 15:31:02
OK, well apart from my other views :) i posted another thread as requested :)

Of course I'll support anything that changes the current way we donate into the coffers, which technically only allows leading feds to feed minerals.

People donate mins up, and the fed fleet gets destroyed, making only some individuals able to get into a position that can take down no 1, and even then they sometimes have to rely on luck. congrats on the current leaders not employing this tatic too much :)

OK, so my thoughts.

Rule 1. Im not too keen on.

I think the imbalance is not created by the amount of mins on the board. but more the problem is created by a feds inability to be able to help their fed members out, when they really need an extra 20-30k mins to finish an attack off. ur fed members are mostly likey sitting on these mins, but usuall have no fleet or little fleet that gets 1-2k mins donated.

770k was the max exp last round, or so im aware. also the holder of this exp wasnt the winner. whislt its been made aware to me that this amount of exp versus lets say 100k would have a dramatic battle outcome.
the concept of say 10k v 77k is not as drastic and the 10ker still has a chance.

lets be more realistic thou, so if they are twice as hard to kill, then ill have 350k and someone will have 50k

still seems unfair.. or is it fair, it thats my exp then good on me, just like someone who has high exp, then maybe they should be able to kick peoples butts. If someone hasnt got high exp, should the really be able to take someone down with 7.7x higher exp?

i have another thought about it been way easier to defend with stronger ships but i havent really thort that one thru

so onto number 2

Personal coffers.
well 2k, obviously balances the concept of 1 federation with 5 members, 10k/5 = 2k each.

however, i dont know to often when ive been completely raped then used the entire 10k to get back up on my feet, replacing it somewhere thru my run for the next guy who, had the same thing happen to him.

So what im saying, im not sure 2k would benefit anyone, and i think a common noobie cry is that, well 10k didnt get me anything :)

Of course this doesnt eliminate the problem of a empire getting a nice big lead on thru failed attacks, (look at the current board) the problem is, it relys on individuals to get there. (see the thread called "what about this idea?"

the concept of the fed fleet is kinda cool as an offshoot of personal coffers idea if that sort of thing was implemented.

and the third idea, which I dont like.

If i want to be in a fed with you, ill be in a fed with you. I play in my fed, coz we seem to be on the same time, we have unusally amounts of fun abusing each other, we have similar concepts that its just a game, we all use msn, and we all make some form of allowances to play sc when we have to work as a team. Heck some of us set our alarms pretty early just to partake in the runs, eh trick :))

Could you imagine me playing in the same fed as kai? Id just spend all my time abusing him, etc etc, thats provided, i havent booted him first, in which instance id boot everyone, and wait for applications from my fellow notorious members.

Wow, thats my views on the current ideas on the table,

i posted another thread called, what about this idea?

Post by: simstar(98)
2004-12-22 04:40:18
Thank you for your thoughtful response chris.

I shall now attempt to give an equally thoughtful one to your response.

I think i need to elaborate my first point more to get you to understand my view of exactly how the changes would effect the game.

If we made all the ships stronger once you have built your ships they will last longer. Therefore you will stay at a similar score longer. This will lead to a much more structured board with the more experienced players at the top and the less experienced at the bottom. As a player gains experience they will move up the board slower. Yes you are right chris that a player would be twice as hard to kill, but we would not be trying to kill players completely anymore. We would just be trying to lower their score.
It would mean that this change would change the way the game is played to a certain degree. Yes currently we all enjoy making a run for the top or near the top. but we do all want to stay there. Currently this is not possible very much of the time. If we make the first change it would not be possible to go from halfway down the second page to the top of the first page in one run. It would be a slower process. A player would gain places and move up the board over a longer period of time. I hope i am explaining myself well, im trying to.

The main thing that really puts new players of is getting totally destroyed everyday and having to rebuild everyday. There is no clear structure for new players, the game seems totally chaotic, which you must all admit it does get tiresome having to rebuild all the time. Would you not rather have to only rebuild a few ships and repair your buildings and then use your aps to help you get up the leader board? I would just like to see how enjoyable this change would be, and whether it would work, if we all like it or the majority like it then we can change the real sc. Id really just like to test this out as i think people may like it once they try it.

lower xps and mineral gain would just be a benefit of the slower game play. It would also lead to feds having to have more coordinated attacks to efficiently lower their enemys scores as less is destroyed.

I do agree that having a personal coffer of 2k is pretty small and as the round progresses this will make even less of a difference. So perhaps just a higher personal coffer? say 5k. I think this idea would work and is more likely to please more people. I suggest we try this idea out first. If people prefer it to the current system(which im sure they will) Then we should implement it.

AS for my third idea, looks like that one is destined for the trash can of my mind.

Post by: daniel smith(3538)
2004-12-22 09:51:09
sim as a quik point out of 1 of your posts dude

if we make ships dbl strengh and exp ig gained 50% less then b4. if i would normaly have 300k exp and a noob 100k now i will have 150k and they 75k.all in all i will still smash through there fleet.

personal coffers i do think we should try, this wouldnt need to be tested in another verion like sct.5k coffers for all empires
Post by: daniel smith(3538)
2004-12-22 09:52:16
woops should of read sparts post to.he is on the same track as me your wandering sumwhere else
Post by: daniel smith(3538)
2004-12-22 10:00:17
with the game how it is there is something to achive eachday..try and go for 1st spot is a goal that will push players..not cool il run to 33rd spot today dam that feels nice..slower exp gain slower score growth and not losing your ships will mean a noob with no donation status will never make first page..it will mean the 20 best players will be on the top 20 all the time, in what way does this help them to like the game more.we are seeying fresh talent that are running up to top 5 many times a round.they create a fed with new players pass alons sum insite to game play and there you go they start to learn the game and pass it along too

Post by: simstar(98)
2004-12-22 10:08:24
Well you are mistaken on the xp there. The difference between 300k and 150k xp is a lot greater than the difference between 150k and 75k.
Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2004-12-22 11:22:06
what about removing the requirement of 3X your score for attacking JUST the #1 spot? then it would be easier to run down the #1 guy useing a co-ordinated fed run or alliances. then we wouldnt se the same empire up there for the whole round, more fed tacticail play, and allances becomeing a bigger part of the game. i will also put this in the coffer thingy thread.sentires out.
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2004-12-22 12:09:24
Ill reply properly a bit later when i have some time, but if we increase the strength of the ships. and i wake up with sheilders still and fighters still. i wont be able to do a full bombers run :) I like bombers :) or would the ships be of strength that they would all be destroyed when i wake up? in which case, wont i have more exp than before, coz i killed more ships going down?

I think SCT would be great to try this idea.

OHHHH, and what happens to my defence record.... SNIFF

Post by: dwp(51152)
2004-12-22 14:46:45

Idea 1) stronger ships:

Yes i'd like to have some ships survive the night, but I would also agree that losing them all is handy if you want to do a full bomber run. What about not stronger ships, but stronger buildings? It isn't the loss of your ships that is soooooo depressing, but the loss of your hw. Ships take 10 minutes and a couple of ap to rebuild an entire fleet with the right infrastructure.

Idea 2) coffer change:

I like this one cos it would be much handier. What if your fed leader isn't online - you can't get to those precious mins which may mean the difference between a good run and having to scavenge about for 50aps before you even start. How about a changing personal coffer limit. Say 1k mins for each day of the round or something (so by the end of the round the coffer is 14k) This would mean that you don't get such an advantage at the start by being able to stash all those luvely mins away, and at the end you have a decent amount to use (2k is nuthin for an empire in the first page at round end).

Idea 3) random feds:

sounds good in theory but i think in practice it would cause as many problems as it would solve. With hundreds of people creating accounts each week, the feds would get so clogged up they would become impossible to manage and impractical to even attempt a fed run. Maybe if you still had your own feds, but each fed was also part of a larger alliance that affected your score. It'd be a compromise that would mean the stronger FEDS would be encouraged to help the weaker FEDS (lets face it, how many active players AREN'T in a fed, anyway). Don't know if this would help teach noobs - i got the hang of the game ok, but you either get it or you don't. If you don't pick it up by using the forum (eg. sentires Guide for Dummies lol) then chances are you ain't gonna pick it up ever.

For getting newbies to stay - maybe a faster ap replenishment for your first few days of using your sc account, or an Official Guide would be a better way.

Geez - didn't realise I had gone on for so long!

One last thought - for ideas 1) and 2) I think they would need to be tested entirely seperatly cos idea 1) might negate the need for idea 2)

Post by: philldodilldo(22259)
2004-12-22 17:25:15
now how about if a fed wins a round they cant re fed together the next round... that would change it up a bit.
Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2004-12-22 17:29:41
but, phil, if we won.... *sob* we couldnt *sniff* fed together then *boohoo* and it wouldnt be fun then for a whole *sniff* round!
Post by: philldodilldo(22259)
2004-12-22 17:29:49
now how about if a fed wins a round they cant re fed together the next round... that would change it up a bit.
Post by: golchasr(44184)
2004-12-23 06:44:40
I am excited to hear about a test round using ships that are stronger and harder to destroy!! Keep up the good work Peter!! :-)
Post by: Little Sister(34495)
2004-12-23 06:50:45
I will give you the short version.

I agree, ships shouldn't blow up like the 4th of July show I go to every year. They need to be a little stronger.

And I also agree about having personal coffers. I think 2k max limit is a little too small, but 10k would be too big....

As for automatically being placed in a fed each round, YUCK.
Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2004-12-23 09:58:44
what, lil sis, you dont want to fed with me and phil?
Post by: Kubala(25078)
2004-12-30 10:09:15
1 Vote for stronger HW! Yay! Yay!
Post by: simstar(98)
2004-12-30 10:15:40
We already made the homeworld stronger several rounds ago because it got destroyed too easily!
Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2005-01-23 01:26:40
are we gonna try this anytime soon???? saw one empire feed 100k mins to #1 spot the other day........WTF????
Post by: Opacus Mortu(61923)
2005-01-23 11:09:54
chill dogg :-p
Reply to Thread

Total Users: 571
Total Forums: 20
Total Threads: 2076
Total Posts: 21663