EternaVerse
The Forum

Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

When ever there needs to be a vote on anything this is the place to do it.

Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Yes
34
56%
No
27
44%
 
Total votes : 61

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby Eterna » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:02 am

yep

another thing to think about.. the moon destruction mission is almost like russian roulette.
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby KnightofNi » Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:21 pm

Eterna wrote:yep

another thing to think about.. the moon destruction mission is almost like russian roulette.


You still have to get through ALL the defenses and have your RIPs intact for even a chance to pop it.. and with just how bad RIPs are stat-wise that takes an absurd amount of fleet. If RIPs had similar RF as the lune, it would be far different, but the RF is about 25% that of the lune, it has half the attack of the lune, and is 4x slower. Its NOT VIABLE with the current stats, hence why being able to build defenses at will is dumb on a grand scale.
KnightofNi
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:50 pm

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby Eterna » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:11 pm

ain't arguing with you Ni, but the stats on the DS may have to be changed for that very reason - we then create a ship that is the "ultimate kill-all" all over again.

Even though this vote HAS won, everyone does need to be aware that certain things cannot just be slapped together. Yes, I've made a promise to have the game shaped by the players, but only if the changes are fully supported by the community.

As it stands, even though technically it's 5 in favour of nanites... there is still a significant resistance to this. Not only are there valid points, but there's VERY little argument FOR the nanites. The only argument being used is "it's done on the planet, why not the moon?" does not ride with me well at all, because then well, why not have EVERY building on the moon? If players were to really think about it.. is that even a point? The phalanx etc are meant to be slow to develop - and considering how points are gained much quicker here than in other games..

I do not believe even a scaled down version of the nanite will be enough to keep the balance from being too far out of whack.

If I make the game too fast, it's not appealing to players who want to play casually - if I create another galaxy for them alone.. it won't be populated enough to be viable. If I appease them directly in this galaxy, there will be many complaints on the other end...

If I make a game too easy, there's no appeal (and no reason) to getting GOOD at the game. If I make it too hard, it will take years to gain a following.

Therefore, I need everyone to not only give me input, but give me an argument. I need players to tell me what they want, why they want it, and be able to back it up fully. One last thing, no one person can make a change except for me. I will do any changes I see fit IF it is for the betterment of EternaVerse - I will NOT do it without warning, nor without a valid reason.

The ODS for example, even though a new unit - it wasn't fully tested and the people really enjoying it didn't ever think it was producing TOO much. I was forced to cut it down because it made mines obsolete o.O

If players don't help find a correction or at least give me input, I will do what I myself feels is best for the game.

One last note, other games control progress and limit speed in such a way that it literally takes 6 months minimum to break 1 million points. We have a few players higher than 4 million points in that time.. though at 50,000 res a point, they're comparable to 20 million points. This is more because popular demand at the beginning, but I may change the entire pricing structure.. ships are going to be altered first, but buildings and tech may follow.

This would mean a huge shift downwards.. which then makes newcomers even more discouraged if they don't know the reasoning behind it.
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby Apoclyps » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:55 am

From what I hear about the deathstar the problem is that you have to
A: Defeat the persons fleet+defenses
B: Have enough deathstars to destroy the moon
C: You lose a percentage of your fleet (or all of it?) if and when A and B are met.

The combination of the above as I understand requires an investment that most are not willing to make just for a chance to destroy someone's moon.

My suggestion would be to focus on one of those aspects that makes the least sense to the community and focus on addressing that.
For example (and this is JUST an example meant to spark conversation and ideas). Maybe B could be taken out of the equation entirely. One deathstar destroys a moon. A and C stay intact as is. The concept of the deathstar is a moon sized battlestation capable of destroying a planet. Requiring 50 of them to destroy a moon seems to "break character" for the concept of the ship.

You want the luxury of having a moon? Great, you need to work at keeping it with this idea above.

Maybe the community feels that Step C in the equation is bonkers. That's fine with me too since I can definitely see a halfway intelligent fleet commander saying "Hmm blowing up a moon might have consequences for my fleet, better have them get to a safe minimum distance". However, maybe the deathstars cant move to a safe minimum distance and so only they are the ships at risk. Or maybe none of them are? Who knows? Discuss that instead if you think that is the way it should go.

And Eterna, as much as it may pain you to hear I think this is one of those cases where this applies most - You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time - but you can never please all of the people all of the time.

Keep in mind that putting things to an open vote and going with the results may simply not be the best way to settle disputes. New players (myself included) may not understand the ramifications of what they are voting on when they are still a month's worth of playtime away from even seeing the effects of their cast vote.


Personally, were I you, my PRIMARY OBJECTIVE would be to get everything sorted out with the ships (and with that, the defenses) first and foremost. That is the draw of this game in my opinion, the vast arsenal of units that you can build. The death star is certainly a ship, but the moon destruction part of it I would say is secondary to getting every other ship ironed out.

My two cents, for whatever it's worth :D
Apoclyps
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:59 am

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby ThatGuyEric » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:00 pm

The trouble then is, fleeters go crazy and can pop any moon in the galaxy with ease. Most moons are defenseless. Most everyone agrees that in most games, where the top fleeters can destroy all moons, there needs to be a change. I think nanites on moons would be that change. It would only leave a few moons unpoppable, and that will help strike a balance, not make all turtles invincible.
Image
User avatar
ThatGuyEric
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:05 am

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby Eterna » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:00 pm

thanks for that apoclyps, we're of a like mind on a few things there.

I'm trying to make moon destruction missions as risky as possible, not the extent that they're not feasible, but they take a calculated risk each time. NO MATTER WHAT POINT YOU'RE AT IN THE GAME.

By having nanites and allowing all defenses etc on the moon, the missions become too risky - to the point that they're ineffective.
You also cannot target moons with IPM's, and if I were to allow nanites on moons.. I'd have to come up with a nuke for defenses on the moons.. that then goes back to.. is it worth it?

In my opinion, no.

Keep discussing, keep voting, keep arguing for either side - it's not set yet.

This entire vote has made me not only rethink certain processes, but made me start work on a Terms and Conditions for the entire suggestion box. This should never have come to a vote in the first place, the community is too split over the details. We're now on the 9th page of discussion with no end in site.

I have enough work on my plate, some players may not be patient but good things take time.
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby Taaxi » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:18 pm

As I have said before, no moon is unpoppable, just like no planet is unattackable. There is no problem with nanites on moons, but it is important for the players to realize that all the cash they sink into moons can be gone in an instant, JUST LIKE INVESTING IN A FLEET. Building up a bunch of defenses on a moon is simply to discourage an attack, much like as it works with planets. How many attacks do you see on "Shell of Hell?" Not many- but if someone builds a big enough fleet, it will be attacked.

What this really comes down to is allowing the players to play the game the way they want. If someone chooses to build nanites and defenses on their moons, or if they leave them defenseless, the more power to them. Let them play their own way. This game is not a cookie cutter, everyone does the same thing, game. Let the players choose how they develop their empire.
User avatar
Taaxi
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:34 pm

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby Eterna » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:30 pm

thats actually a very good point, and tbh, the most sound argument for Nanites.

If it comes down to it... would the community be forgiving if we ran it for a month trial once the combat trials are over?
would the players be angry if it was removed if the worse case scenario happened?


The way I see it, the problem is two fold.

On one hand you have a turtle style player who will beef up the defenses on their moon and make them very hard to kill - not impossible, but very very risky. Sending overwhelming force and having the DS fail.. or the 50% kickback for a 100% hit could make it a VERY dangerous battle - yes, the turtle risks losing the moon and all the resources spent, but the fleeter risks their fleet to the extreme.

On the other hand, you have the fleeter style players who will use the Moon Nanite to develop Phalanx and JumpGates in record time, spreading their reign of terror much farther and much faster than ever before. I know many players who use temporary moons to move fleets in for the kill, but to have temporary moons WITH phalanx and a 30 minute gate.. that's just scary.

It also brings up another very big point.
All about Points in fact.

Right now to counterbalance the speed of the game, I've made points equate to 50,000 resources OF ANY TYPE to 1 (a single) point.
Some players had a bit of an advantage by getting in first, while others are hiding some nice sized fleets very well.

The first thing most new players (who are experienced) does when they join is look at the rankings. Should points be worth considerably more? Realize that this changes the whole layout on Noob Protection at the same time.

Should everything be dropped in price (to a tenth) but have time stay the same? Many things to consider when you realize just how many points it will display when you're getting close to unlocking everything...
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby warchild » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:31 pm

i agree with taaxi and stated so earlier on in this argument i think its insane to spend that sort of res on a moon that can be destroyed and as there is no cap on fleets it will never be unpoppable and most of the prob is raiders and fleeters that want an easy catch .well the game has all the features required to pop such moons like acs attack and teamwork and aliances and fleets with no size cap if a fleeters can invest in massive fleets why cant miners or turtles invest in defence for their style of play .and simply add a DF for moon destroys and all is fair for all it all comes down to simple personal choice and style of play none of which is really affected by nanites on a moon .
warchild
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:58 am

Re: Should we be able to build Nanite Factories on Moons?

Postby borrad » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:44 am

yes you should be able to build nanite,because the only safe way for a fleet to land on a moon and a shell is there it makes it harder to strike,if an alliance attacks a player who is not in an alliance he stands a chance if the moon is defended.borrad out...
borrad
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Voting Booth

  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron