EternaVerse
The Forum

Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

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

Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships? (Except the Death Star)

Yes!
16
57%
No!
12
43%
 
Total votes : 28

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby KnightofNi » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:16 pm

It doesn't already give the higher tier ships? o_o

Yes to the higher tier ships (don't see why there would be a difference between plunging them into skippyaustralia's shell and doing this :P), a giant no towards recycling anything else.
KnightofNi
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:50 pm

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby Imperiex » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:27 am

I voted no, though quite frankly that doesn't really represent my vote. I think if the scrapyard doesn't cover defenses as well as ships then we should get rid of the scrapyard all together.
Imperiex
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby Imperiex » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:41 am

Eterna wrote:No to defenses for the same reason that buildings require a "fee" to deconstruct, you can't "move" them to the ScrapYard.
Buildings are completely out of the question.

I simply will not budge on this point.

As to Apoclyps's idea, it's far too complicated for such a simple task. What'd be the point in lowering the return for more expensive ships? More people would cry foul...



This kind of arbitrary reasoning is why I haven't bothered with the forums in weeks. In the end, it's not really a player controlled game is it? And "you can't move them to the scrapyard"? Since when has real world logic been a valid argument in these forums (can you say "No nanite factories on the moon" boys and girls? :roll: ) If nothing else we should at least be able to scrap our IPMs and ABMs so that we can fill the silos with diffent ammo if we want to change.
Imperiex
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby Eterna » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:15 pm

Imperiex, I don't know what your beef is, but wth would be the use of recycling defenses?

When, if ever, would it be useful?

Before you call my reasoning arbitrary, you should look at the bigger picture, not the immediate question. If I were to make the ScrapYard cover EVERYTHING, then what would be the point? It would become an "oops" button. Exactly what we don't need.

I hear every idea out, but if it's not something that will be useful in the long run, I simply will not do it.
I reserve the right to refuse to do anything I do not want to - Yes, you may all make suggestions, but in the end it's ME who has to code it.

Until you can actually do the code, don't bitch about an idea NOT being implemented.

Your posts have been nothing short of inflammatory, with little grounding on the actual questions at hand.

Now, why would you vote NO if that doesn't represent your vote? You're only wasting YOUR time, and everyone else's time who reads your posts.

I think if the scrapyard doesn't cover defenses as well as ships then we should get rid of the scrapyard all together.


That there is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen coming from you. And as to your last comment about it not being a player controlled game... that's insulting. If I were to put every hair brained idea into the game, nothing would ever be finished. I pick and choose, and I don't waste my time on idea's that aren't well thought out, or even completed.

As to your comment about real world logic not being a valid argument... what the hell have you been smoking? I've been trying to give as much logic to the game as I can. The nanites on a moon are just foolishness, and I make that statement based on years of experience in these sort of games. Hell, read the more recent post from the guy who STARTED the poll - Taaxi - he's finally understanding why I'm against the nanites on a moon.

I'm beginning to see WHY so many other games are the way they are, allow too many Captains and the Ship sinks. Look at how most games are, it's their way or the highway.

Get your head out of the clouds and actually TALK, instead of whine - and in case you're wondering, I have no customer service skills, I'm doing this game as a favour to you ALL, not as a Get-Rich-Quick Scheme. I don't particularly care if you respect me or not, but don't bash my actions without knowing the reasoning behind them.

Now, ABM's and IPM's - that is something I would gladly add to the ScrapYard - IT MAKES SENSE.

For the life of me, Defenses being recyclable just doesn't make any sense. They take no space on the planet, they don't cost anything to maintain... Give me one good reason why they should be...So far, all I hear is hypothesis with no backing.
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby n-f » Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:03 pm

Imperiex wrote: This kind of arbitrary reasoning is why I haven't bothered with the forums in weeks. In the end, it's not really a player controlled game is it? And "you can't move them to the scrapyard"? Since when has real world logic been a valid argument in these forums (can you say "No nanite factories on the moon" boys and girls? :roll: ) If nothing else we should at least be able to scrap our IPMs and ABMs so that we can fill the silos with diffent ammo if we want to change.



As far as i know a good portion of this game has used real world logic to guide its creation, some things though just arnt productive to the overall game. If it ruins the gameplay for a good majority of people well there aint gonna be much of a game left........

Not player controlled?? So many ideas from the suggestions have come to life, Look at the past successful votes we've held that CONTROLLED how the game is played. In the end, your looking at this the wrong way..... from behind blinders.

I am a player and as far as I see it this is the most player controlled game ive ever played due to the voting system actually being upheld and suggestions getting implemented in a timely manner(and the dude doesnt even get paid for this shit.... Other games can take months/years for shit to get done)
NorthFace

Helping make this game make sense since 2010

When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.
n-f
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Lost

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby Taaxi » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:05 pm

I want to start by saying that I have a lot of respect for Eterna and what he does for the game and the community here. I appreciate all the hard work, but when I read his post I do have some major disagreements and found myself agreeing with most of what Imperiex said.

Eterna wrote:Imperiex, I don't know what your beef is, but wth would be the use of recycling defenses?

When, if ever, would it be useful?


Some defenses are totally useless with the broken battle engine. For example Rocket Launchers and Light Lasers. The way RF works, just having these defenses on your planet causes more harm than good when attacked by ships that have high RF against them (Like Lunes)

Before you call my reasoning arbitrary, you should look at the bigger picture, not the immediate question. If I were to make the ScrapYard cover EVERYTHING, then what would be the point? It would become an "oops" button. Exactly what we don't need.

What is so wrong about having an oops button? Isn't canceling a queue an Oops button? When talking about deconstruction, I think the 60% return is fair. I don't see people building stuff just to destroy it- that doesn't make sense- if would if there was a 100% return, but the 40% loss is enough of a penalty to avoid abuse. If "nanomachines" can build stuff, why can't they deconstruct the same stuff, recovering 60% in the process?

I reserve the right to refuse to do anything I do not want to - Yes, you may all make suggestions, but in the end it's ME who has to code it.


And that is Eterna's right. He owns the game and can do as he ultimately pleases, regardless of popular opinion.
As to your comment about real world logic not being a valid argument... what the hell have you been smoking? I've been trying to give as much logic to the game as I can. The nanites on a moon are just foolishness, and I make that statement based on years of experience in these sort of games. Hell, read the more recent post from the guy who STARTED the poll - Taaxi - he's finally understanding why I'm against the nanites on a moon.


My post that is being referred to has nothing to do with realism. I still see no realism reason to not have nanites on moons. What I was trying to say is that popping moons is very hard as it is now. It's because the only way to pop moons is with Deathstars and there is roughly a 43% chance that the deathstars will be destroyed with the attempt, with no DF left to recover. It's not nanites that are the problem, but the destroy mission as it is. With enough defenses on the moon, an attacker will need to spend so much on an attack with a pretty high chance that he will lose his fleet, makes it a broken system.

Also, the point of popping a moon is to reveal a fleet or cock block by getting rid of someone's jumpgates/phalanxs. The reason that the poppers don't like the idea of the nanites is that it allows the person that they just popped to rebuild their moon in a much shorter time. What makes the lunar buildings, as they are now, special is that they take a LOT of time to complete and losing a moon would be a major setback time wise- the resources are nothing compared to the time.
I'm beginning to see WHY so many other games are the way they are, allow too many Captains and the Ship sinks. Look at how most games are, it's their way or the highway.
I don't have a lot of experience in this genre of game. I have never played any that this one was copied and improved from. So, I don't know how many are dictatorships with a bunch of yes-men.

Now, ABM's and IPM's - that is something I would gladly add to the ScrapYard - IT MAKES SENSE.

For the life of me, Defenses being recyclable just doesn't make any sense. They take no space on the planet, they don't cost anything to maintain... Give me one good reason why they should be...So far, all I hear is hypothesis with no backing.


As I have posted previously, the 2 missles should have their own limits and not be tied to the same bucket. As for the other defenses, I see very good reasons to scrap the crappy ones and build the better ones and it has everything to do with the way the battle engine works.


There is really no reason for any name calling here.. It's all a matter of trying to make the game better and more popular without alienating the loyal player base before the game takes off.
User avatar
Taaxi
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:34 pm

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby bean2525 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:12 am

i voted yes , but i have another idea ...
continue with the tier 1 listing for now .. for ships deathstar and above create a DF = to 60 % Actual construction cost .. this way destroying Capitol ships will become more costly as you will have to spend Deuterium to get the DF. Risky too as somebody else may get there first :lol:
Image
bean2525
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:50 am

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby n-f » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:19 am

bean2525 wrote:i voted yes , but i have another idea ...
continue with the tier 1 listing for now .. for ships deathstar and above create a DF = to 60 % Actual construction cost .. this way destroying Capitol ships will become more costly as you will have to spend Deuterium to get the DF. Risky too as somebody else may get there first :lol:


DF rate is already 60% for all ships :D


Taaxi wrote:Some defenses are totally useless with the broken battle engine. For example Rocket Launchers and Light Lasers. The way RF works, just having these defenses on your planet causes more harm than good when attacked by ships that have high RF against them (Like Lunes)


Can you please expand on this? My experience is quite the opposite, meaning I can build about 1/4 cost of the lunas in light lasers and Ill kill the luna's. Obviously though thats pure Light lasers. Your bringing past horrors of the damage overflow problem we had a few months back
NorthFace

Helping make this game make sense since 2010

When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.
n-f
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Lost

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby Eterna » Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:41 am

That is a valid point Taaxi, though the battle engine isn't broken - it's incomplete.

I may include tier 1 defenses just because you've been able to back the need with clear reasoning, but I still don't think the scrapyard should cover ALL defenses and ALL ships.

There was no basis on realism in the argument to not have nanites on moons, but the main reason I'm against it is simply because I know there will be people thinking their moons are invincible.. and they're goin to be real surprised to find out the truth.

Again, the moon destruction calculation is not final - I have many more plans for it. It's just on the back burner.

Now let me explain something as you're still relatively new to these sort of games.
In another game, one alliance dominates the entire game due to their mass numbers of Death Stars. When they get a whiff of a big fleet, they pop ALL that player's moons. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.
Then, they pop all the moons within a few systems.
If they miss the fleet, they then pop every moon they can see, regardless of who owns it.

Often, they pop moons at random, just to see what shows up.

THIS is the behaviour I want to discourage. Not only is it unfair, but it's cheap. Once you have enough Death Stars, you are practically unstoppable.

I want there to be a calculated risk. I want there to be danger. It's not a broken system when it's planned that way...
Someone posted earlier the DS should be cheaper... well thats why there's a 2 for 1 Officer.

I'm not trying to alienate the player base, or insult anyone... but when someone makes statements that are quite false, or attempt to allude that there is some wrong doing, damned if I'm going to smile and take it. Imperiex may have been insulted by my post, but I give criticism just as often as I receive it.
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Should the ScrapYard cover ALL ships?

Postby Taaxi » Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:25 pm

I agree that the popping of moons is a pretty dick move that sets the player back quite a bit. I don't want to see this turn into the game that Eterna describes. I just had a bright idea that may be the compromise, assuming it can be coded:

The reason people pop moons is to 1) reveal fleet on phalanx, 2) stop the use of phalanx and jumpgate 3) grief the player.

1 and 2 are pretty legitimate reasons, but 3 just pisses people off and makes them quit. So, instead of moons being DESTROYED, what about making them temporarily disabled for, say 24 hours, after a successful "Destroy" mission. The moon would be unusable by the player while disabled, and the fleets that were headed to/from the moon would be changed to the planet, like they are now when the moon goes byebye..
User avatar
Taaxi
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Voting Booth

  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron