Astro Galaxy - a realistic space exploration game

Feedback Terminal => Suggestions => Topic started by: Bomale on October 06, 2012, 02:26:20 PM



Title: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 06, 2012, 02:26:20 PM
 hi Salutation,

Discussion for an optional blank to add to the fight.

We know that currently the modules on systems and stations can be destroyed in an attack.
In my opinion, in this process, it is very  :4: frustrating for the player to lose many hours invested and the cost too.
A repetition, it becomes erritant and it is likely that the player gets tired of playing.

 :)) here a way to proceed for fighting, a basic idea what.

Suppose that the modules can not be destroyed in battle, but rather endommaged. Module endommaged work has 20%, and until it is fully repaired.
 :atention: Pirates maybe just interested by pillar, so don't need to capture, just loot the module.

Behold, now adds a new dimension in the fighting ... modules can no longer be destroyed but rather endommaged when they are located a planet, then a player would have the option of capturing module endommaged.

Only modules endommaged on a planet will be captured. And this option would actually purchase the actual value of module and the amount paid will be returned to the owner legitimate.

Thus, a player capturing the module may become the owner and need to repair to get a fully new module.
The cost to capture and repair is more cost elevate the actual module base is perfect,
so the player has acquerie module for the location, or for a resource, or simply because he wanted technology higher than him he does not possess.

Thus, we eliminate the frustration and travails facts.
This introduce little strategy in planetary invasion.

Note : Option(s) module endommaged :
              Owner : Can not do any change before it fully repair.
              Other player : Loot or capture.

 :12: What do you think?


Title: More strategy
Post by: Bomale on October 07, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
 hi Hello again,

Approach brings an option modules become damaged catchable


Before we can capture module damaged, the planet will have NO military unit and NO civilian present.
So, it will capture these units first if they are present, then the other modules damaged.

For these example just needs to say 20% efficiency for damaged modules.

Example 1: Planet with Damages in modules:
1. MIF 20% of 350 = 70 civilians Civilians
Capture 1: Can be captured easily with either 70 civilians and 25 military

Example 2: Planet with Damages in modules:
1. MIF 20% of 350 = 70 civilians Civilians
2. MAU (Marine Assault Units) 20% of 1200 = 240 Military + cost of the module


Capture 1: Capture the MAU with 240 Military,
Capture 2: Capture the MIF as in Example 1.

Greater the MAU and capture modules will be more difficult.
We can add LVQ, the efficiency is lower then MAU but cost too.

Here is the strategy that will increase in the fighting and make them more varied.

I personally believe that every game should avoid too easily destroy the work done by the players
A varied strategy in the fight is a dimension that I like, and avoids the possibility to monotonous repetition when it has no strategy.
This is an idea that can be modeled to finally be realize for the good of all.

 :12: Just a discussion, but there are a LOT of potential.

Bomale


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Heretic on October 07, 2012, 05:14:11 PM
I do like the idea of having an option not to destroy it. What if, say, you had two options when attacking: one destroys the modules, but has a really low loot value (good during wars where you want to cripple the enemy, but not spread yourself too thin). The other option would be to plunder the module, damaging it but not destroying it, and getting more loot and a chance to capture it?


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 07, 2012, 05:43:09 PM
I do like the idea of having an option not to destroy it. What if, say, you had two options when attacking: one destroys the modules, but has a really low loot value (good during wars where you want to cripple the enemy, but not spread yourself too thin). The other option would be to plunder the module, damaging it but not destroying it, and getting more loot and a chance to capture it?

 hi Hello,

Yes, It is better as you said that the current way.

 :21: Imagine this, I took my best ship and I can destroy all that I meet on my way.
So for the new players, the Apocalypse would permanently.
Not just me, another player can do too, so the game quickly loses interest for the new players.

For this last reason, I believe, that destroy a module on the planet should not do this.
 :12: My opinion is that not only the ships can not be destroyed, but the station also. They can be damaged, the pillar and put them nonfunctional.

 :sweat You know how long (days) and resource (many solars) that it takes to build a nice set-up for get money.
Work over several weeks could destroy just for the pleasure of destroying.

 :)) Say no to destruction, so called recycling.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 08, 2012, 04:50:23 AM
Aye,

Its an Idea worth talking about.

The lads and I are really only interested in one thing, Getting enough money together to pay for our Rum. Were not into destruction just for the sake of it.

If we had the option to just loot a settlement instead of destroy it, well we most likely take it up. After all if we dont destroy it then it will be there to loot again later.

If we do loot the station/planet/ship then id expect that we get access to the specific goods that are being mined/stored there. rather than the minerals that go into making its modules.

Perhapes the dirtsiders could even have the option to surrender earlier than when theyve taken full damage if the attacker is using a looting focused attack, Sort of allows the owner to say that they will accept the occasional loss of the goods so long as they dont loose all their modules. Id expect there will be a few die hards that would also like to say they never surrender... well so be it.

Id still like to be able to capture a module every now and then though, especially those nice high mark versions that we simply cant build ourselves. So we wouldnt want to see that option dissappear.

I reckon this could be a win-win for both sides if done right.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: SirEmi on October 08, 2012, 09:41:14 AM
Ok, I think we could do something like this:

An option can be selected by the attacker before the attack on station / planetary forces.

Loot & plunder (selected by default)
Marines will fortify to 9 HP each, Trained civilians 3 HP

Mining / harvester facilities extracted fill rate amount will be looted.
Stations cargo holds will be looted with 100% chance.

Military units / weapons fight and take casualties.
Some military personnel will survive and re-group after the attack.

Civilian personnel will only engage if the planetary / station unit is at least two times more powerful then the attacker unit,
if not they surrender the goods / resources and nothing will be destroyed.



Capture / Destroy
Marines will fortify to 15 HP each, Trained civilians 5 HP

Capture vs Destroy chance 50% / 50%
Wreckage from station and modules destroyed in minerals and gases.
Only 25% chance of looting each station cargo, due to being destroyed.

Everyone fights.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 08, 2012, 12:14:21 PM
Sounds good. a few Comments.

If Im a joe shmoe working on some mining station and a bunch of pirates show up in orbit and attack only the marines defending me while broadcasting a message that says eject the cargo and we leave you alone, then im pretty likely to eject all the cargo for them to scoop up, in the hopes ill live. However, if they start shooting at everything. then Im likely to defend myself for a while before trying to sneak away from the module in my space suit before the whole place gets destroyed.

So.

Perhapes on the loot & plunder attack just have the military units fight? That way only they will take the casualties, if they are defeated then the civilians surrender, and the attacker can loot the resources. The defender then only needs to replace marines in the military units to be back to full strength. There could perhapes still be a chance that a military module does get destroyed, especially if the attack was overwealming, and id expect that not all marines get killed before they surrender, so that after the raid they can regroup and the planet/station is not totally defenceless untill new marines arrive.

Im not so interested in taking (more) prisoners. They take up way too much cargo space compared to their value as it is. Unless we can convert them to fuel, which is i guess kind of immorral  :21: Id rather not capture more prisoners on a loot and plunder attack, id actually prefer less.  However i do think that people out to capture modules would normally be more interested in taking prisoners, so that they can then use them to crew the new module.

The fortification bonus of 5 when defnding against a capture / destroy attack wil likely make it necessary to attack with multiple ships against a single target during a player war. where destruction is the main goal, Which seems like a good thing. it might even help slow down the pace of a war somewhat. although i guess people will still be vulnerable to a QP aided Blitzkreig.



Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: SirEmi on October 08, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
Ok, edited the details a bit, should be more balance now.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: aTraveller on October 08, 2012, 12:46:31 PM
Loot & plunder (selected by default)
Marines will fortify to 9 HP each, Trained civilians 3 HP

Mining / harvester facilities extracted fill rate amount will be looted.
Stations cargo holds will be looted with 100% chance.
Only military units fight and take casualties.
Some military personnel will survive and re-group after the attack.
Normal chance to capture personnel in boarding / ground combat.
Nothing will be destroyed.

question 1: does the fortification mean for the defender, attacker, or both?  Also, why the phrase "fortification"? Is this different than the normal HP for military and civilian?

question 2:  100% loot rate seems extremely high - shouldn't it be related to percentage success in battle?  Or does this mean it's 100% if the attack is successful?

Quote


Capture / Destroy
Marines will fortify to 15 HP each, Trained civilians 5 HP

Capture vs Destroy chance 50% / 50%
Wreckage from station and modules destroyed in minerals and gases.
Only 25% chance of looting each station cargo, due to being destroyed.
Double chance to capture personnel in boarding / ground combat.


What does "wreckage from station and modules destroyed in minerals and gases" mean?


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 08, 2012, 12:50:33 PM
 hi Hi,

 :atention: Need to know whether we recognize first that the destruction of modules on a solid or gas planet is acceptable or not.

The question would be:
Is what I want my modules is constantly destroyed and, since it is currently possible?
Is this a new player be love destroy these modules after a long effort to introduce and continue the game?

For me, no doubt I am part of the NO. Loosing players will not help us.

If the whole community is for YES,
  then hoped a player with a powerful ship does not pass through your system.
Not known him that it is too powerful, or that harasses, it does what it does because the logistics of the game allows.

 :)) In the words of Scion, yes indeed, a module can be damaged easily and looted again,
  less profitable because the owner has not made repairs and the modules does 20% as has already been said in the example.
That sound good to me.

Keeping the damaged modules and not destroy,
an attacker can find a way to more fun and have a source of income, making a sector's hunting ground and making slaves some players present in system.

 :21: Regarding the capture is that it is strategic rather than beneficial. Really important to understand the difference between the two.
If the score is beneficial determinant, then returned almost at the same level as to destroy a module.
If this is the strategic dimension is very different then, is to capture the level of technical module, this is the resource on the planet, or any other reasons.

In addition, the cost of capture must be necessarily high to avoid unnecessary abuse.
It will be evident that investment will not be a problem for the capture of few MIF on a planet with 1 @ 2 rare resources, or resources needed.
If the area is poor, the cost of the capture is perhaps not worth it, so much the better.
In addition, for type gas planets (almost defenseless),
  it is again easy for a player to damaged modules and keep them in slavery, and even if they do work has 20%.
There no limit for player to build his economy all around with this strategy.

In short, our community must determine if it agrees to eliminate the option of destruction modules.
Each module is destroyed depressing to new players, industry players, or simply less powerful player.

After determining the there will be a beacon to advance no matter the choice.

 :12: To us to decide.
 :)) We all need to have fun, even the slave is entitled to some happiness.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: SirEmi on October 08, 2012, 12:51:40 PM

question 1: does the fortification mean for the defender, attacker, or both?  Also, why the phrase "fortification"? Is this different than the normal HP for military and civilian?

question 2:  100% loot rate seems extremely high - shouldn't it be related to percentage success in battle?  Or does this mean it's 100% if the attack is successful?

q3: What does "wreckage from station and modules destroyed in minerals and gases" mean?

1.) The defenders basically get more HP, hitpoints as they have the terrain knowledge and fortify themselves against attack. The more fierce, deadly the attack, the more determined the defenders will be.

2.) 100% means that everything in the cargo holds and fill rates in the mining facilities will be looted, if there is enough cargo space to hold it.

3.) Wreckage means that when the modules are destroyed, some minerals / gases will be recovered from the wreckage.


Also, to answer Bomale about destroying modules vs. farming them.

For a pirate I don't see any problems in him going about and collecting resources from other players via loot & plunder. If they can't defend the modules, it's better for them to pay this tax to the pirate rather then the module being destroyed and I see the pirate benefiting more from farming the mining facilities then destroying it, but if he chooses to destroy / capture then the personnel will put up a good fight, with fortify bonus and all...

Repairing modules and such is too much micro-management, and to keep it realistic if the pirate asks for the loot and you give it, he moves on and you don't sustain any damage other then losing the resources. Eliminating destroying of modules wouldn't be too smart, that would make it difficult to claim planets and get rid of unwanted presence.

So you could have two mining facilities on a small moon with some rare resources in it. Now the pirates may come every few days and collect your fill rate, it cuts into your profits but hey, you sill have your modules and personnel  :))




Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: aTraveller on October 08, 2012, 01:15:17 PM

2.) 100% means that everything in the cargo holds and fill rates in the mining facilities will be looted, if there is enough cargo space to hold it.


I understood the 100% part - what I didn't understand is what allows the attacker to loot? Does he have to win the battle first?  Even if the attack is successful, I don't think 100% loot should be given - that's extremely rewarding.  To do this, I would almost reverse what you said, where the defenders get a bigger bonus against looting than they do against destruction, because it's easier to destroy than it is to subdue.

It shouldn't be easy to just roam around and take things from mining facilities on the surfaces of planets; there should be some effort involved.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 08, 2012, 01:19:28 PM
What does "wreckage from station and modules destroyed in minerals and gases" mean?

tell me where youve left some undefended modules and i will happily demonstrate.  :))

Also, there is a reasonable risk involved in being a pirate, its not all taking candy from a baby. A lot of the planets now are well defended, Ive even been reduced to ferrying passengers around to pay for some upgrades. although they will have a tale to tell their grandchildren, i really should charge them more.

If a planet or facility is well defended then it is not easy to loot. Not witht he fortification bonus.

With the proposed changes it would mean you could reduce your potential losses by picking up your resources regularly. But i think most of the folks whose stuff ive raized to the ground would agree they would have rather i just taken the resources they had on hand than loose all the modules.



Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 08, 2012, 01:27:55 PM

For a pirate I don't see any problems in him going about and collecting resources from other players via loot & plunder. If they can't defend the modules, it's better for them to pay this tax to the pirate rather then the module being destroyed and I see the pirate benefiting more from farming the mining facilities then destroying it, but if he chooses to destroy / capture then the personnel will put up a good fight, with fortify bonus and all...

 hi Hi,

 :21: I do not see how a new player would be able to defend themselves or to modules efficient enough to defend its modules.
       (There will ALWAYS be easier to have a superior strength for a player somewhat advance)
 :14: Pay a fee to avoid the destruction, it's for a day, a week, or for immediate..., and for a module, or a system or for worse, an Alliance, etc..., can be nice and acceptable for one time or two.
In addition, we are talking about as a pirate, players will manage how the taxes when he has several pirates? Not obvious.

Then even the top players will have modules with less or no protection, he shall pay a fee! Hmmm still not evident.

And the same, it will not stop a pirate to destroy the module.

To continu...


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 08, 2012, 01:39:11 PM
...continu,


Repairing modules and such is too much micro-management, and to keep it realistic if the pirate asks for the loot and you give it, he moves on and you don't sustain any damage other then losing the resources. Eliminating destroying of modules wouldn't be too smart, that would make it difficult to claim planets and get rid of unwanted presence.


Implements this option is difficult, of course, I am in no hurry so this is the time it takes.

It can be similar to the repair of armor and / or cost in solars. Or another way, as time ... whatever.

 :12: Build a game with a solid foundation takes time and we encourage take this time.



Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: SirEmi on October 08, 2012, 03:53:36 PM

2.) 100% means that everything in the cargo holds and fill rates in the mining facilities will be looted, if there is enough cargo space to hold it.


I understood the 100% part - what I didn't understand is what allows the attacker to loot? Does he have to win the battle first?  Even if the attack is successful, I don't think 100% loot should be given - that's extremely rewarding.  To do this, I would almost reverse what you said, where the defenders get a bigger bonus against looting than they do against destruction, because it's easier to destroy than it is to subdue.

It shouldn't be easy to just roam around and take things from mining facilities on the surfaces of planets; there should be some effort involved.

Yes, of course the pirate has to win the battle against the military forces. Then, if the civilian forces are outnumbered, they will surrender and hand over the cargo if they have any, and if the attacking ship has cargo space to hold it...



Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: SirEmi on October 08, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
...continu,


Repairing modules and such is too much micro-management, and to keep it realistic if the pirate asks for the loot and you give it, he moves on and you don't sustain any damage other then losing the resources. Eliminating destroying of modules wouldn't be too smart, that would make it difficult to claim planets and get rid of unwanted presence.


Implements this option is difficult, of course, I am in no hurry so this is the time it takes.

It can be similar to the repair of armor and / or cost in solars. Or another way, as time ... whatever.

 :12: Build a game with a solid foundation takes time and we encourage take this time.


Alright Bomale, I'll be working on this thing and see how it goes with looting and pillaging as most people seem to agree it's better then the destroying that currently is on. Some civilians will be lost so there will be repairing involved in that you will probably have to assign new personnel from time to time if you get raided, but of course the best defense is a good offense so lots of weapons / marines to protects the little miners :)





Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 08, 2012, 04:19:15 PM
:atention: Little fact:
Whatever way or the way a player can lose a module, if the loss of this module is costing less than buying and installing this module,
then the owner will have to enormously defense to protect its modules.
And anyway, this defense will be easy to destroy/capture with a ship slightest powerful.  (Just thing about gas planet, or tiny planet.)

 :21: Capture must be going strategic and not economic. The economy is the pilliage, and the strategy is the capture.
 With the gun power  :pistols: we go to Ecomic pilliage, after with military/civils :bash: AND solars :greedy: we go in strategy capture.
 This way increase strategy in combat, and viability of the game at long term.

 :19: It goes well with this topic, let's not give


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 09, 2012, 08:08:15 AM
@Bomale, For an example of a well defended settlement take a look at what outerposse has done at Eta GJ 674... No way ill be messing with that any time soon, even if looting is enabled, that station is packing too much fire power.

ofcourse leaving just a few modules undefended on a planet is asking to have them looted.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 09, 2012, 11:01:16 AM
Actually,

Bassed on a few recent battles the fortification bonus makes it very unpredictable wether you will actually win even if ship power rating is significantly higher than  defender.

a 5 times fortification bonus if the attacker is trying to destroy you increases defenders chance of winning significantly. Even current 3 times bonus makes it very hard... ( no im not crying here, just stating opinion )

I terms of predictability the battles from ship to station/planet are very unpredictable. if weapons do minor hits you going to loose no matter who you are. If much weaker opponent gets first shot and does a critical or major hit even with a single laser you loose in a ship. unless you are not just 4-5 times as powerfull but are many more factors more powerfull, and full of armour. of course if you did get first shot and do normal damage then your likely to win.

I think you need to actually have done a good number of fights to get a feeling for it. Easy to overlook how unpredictable it is otherwise.




Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 09, 2012, 11:36:06 AM
@Bomale, For an example of a well defended settlement take a look at what outerposse has done at Eta GJ 674... No way ill be messing with that any time soon, even if looting is enabled, that station is packing too much fire power.

ofcourse leaving just a few modules undefended on a planet is asking to have them looted.

 hi Scion, my pirate,


That sound nice,
but without knowing the attack power that does not actually tell me much. How module on the planet 9, 6, 4?
But still, whatever, just have my ship alone has over 150k attack power now. And I can be increase.
 :arrow: Question now of after you, Is what I could destroy these facilities with my ship?
 :arrow: Next, if I can not, another player can it?

In 2 cases, the loss for the player to its facilities on the planet is disastrous and repetition will discourage any player.
 Player without having facilities, how you live as a pirate?

We talk to a single case, but with a planet of 1, 4 slots what do we do as a defense, an orbital station!
 Same problem as for the planet, this return to the same, just conveys the stations defenses, the consequences are the same.

I remain of the opinion not to have destruction of modules.
A pirate can he live economically with the looting of modules endommaged?
Capture module is optional and the strategy after the modules were damaged, and then land and military units can attempt to capture a cost elevate one / several modules.

 :12: Consider the beginner, they can be doing anything without fear of being constantly losing their facilities.

 :21: I would say even more, we should perhaps consider that a planet with an orbital station, could NOT have opportunity to capture,
   it would offer the beginner a solid foundation, knowing that the stations are all the same orbitals limited.
   Only the looting would be available.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 09, 2012, 12:13:06 PM
...
I terms of predictability the battles from ship to station/planet are very unpredictable. if weapons do minor hits you going to loose no matter who you are. If much weaker opponent gets first shot and does a critical or major hit even with a single laser you loose in a ship. unless you are not just 4-5 times as powerfull but are many more factors more powerfull, and full of armour. of course if you did get first shot and do normal damage then your likely to win.
...
hi Hi

:atention: Here we talk about climbing power, and there 's never will stop rising, and the gap between beginners and more advanced players will continue to increase.

     Not if it is a promising way for anyone!
     Attacker will ask more power, and defenser ask more defense.


:12: And the strategy is not part of the game. Power, more power and a little more power.

     Power is not the solution, it's a means, a tool , I believe.
     I am convinced that no new player can resist against any player between us. Why, because of the difference in power.



Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 09, 2012, 01:21:07 PM
Yes, as someone who hasnt cashed in lots of QP to buy a bigger ship, or to fit it out. I am well aware that i am not now, or ever, am i likely to be the big fish, thats ok, small fish can have sharp teeth too.

Any new player willing to spash some cash around will easily be able to build a fleet larger and stronger that what most of the players that are building facilities are capable of defending against even after weeks or months of game play. This is just a fact of life when playing games like this that need to offer power-ups for real world cash to finance their development and ongoing operation.

Is there anything to stop someone joining the game and griefing by just destroying everything... no not really. Even if they cant destroy stuff and just 'capture' it the same problem exists, a more powerfull player can simply move in and take everything from a newer or less powerfull player. So to 'protect' the less powerfull you would need to ban both destroy and capture options.

But if you remove the ability to destroy/capture modules then the game is radically different. Instead of slowly expanding a well defended set of places, you will see people in a mad scramble to put something down on every valuable spot they can find as fast as they can buy/build modules and get them out somewhere. since no one can do anything about it once you have a module there. The game becomes a simple race to reserve as much teritory as possible.

My thoughts about adding an option to loot is that it is potentially more lucrative in the long run for BOTH sides. the pirate can generate an income and get at resources that he might not otherwise be able too although at significant risk to his ships integrity. The miner is less likely to have their whole facilites wipped out, and only need to keep unloading it and resupplying the defenders to generate reasonable profits.

I reckon you should have a go at attacking a few planets with that big beastly ship you have... find out how it really is for yourself ;) Sure you can clean the boards on most of the smaller operations, but id bet a few of the better defended places would give you a run for your money.







Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 09, 2012, 03:44:58 PM
Yes, as someone who hasnt cashed in lots of QP to buy a bigger ship, or to fit it out. I am well aware that i am not now, or ever, am i likely to be the big fish, thats ok, small fish can have sharp teeth too.
   Well, and this will be the case for many new players.
    For other, invest in a large and powerful ship without invest in research/mining , they will come pirate.

Any new player willing to spash some cash around will easily be able to build a fleet larger and stronger that what most of the players that are building facilities are capable of defending against even after weeks or months of game play. This is just a fact of life when playing games like this that need to offer power-ups for real world cash to finance their development and ongoing operation.
   As you say "Any new player willing to spash some cash.."
    and it is still the case that VERY FEW new player, and even that is insufficient in many cases.

Is there anything to stop someone joining the game and griefing by just destroying everything... no not really.
Even if they cant destroy stuff and just 'capture' it the same problem exists, a more powerfull player can simply move in and take everything from a newer or less powerfull player. So to 'protect' the less powerfull you would need to ban both destroy and capture options.
   Nobody likes to destroy his accomplishments, especially unnecessarily.
     If we take the fact that it costs MORE to capture a module's than purchase it at Sol, then the capture come strategigue.
     So NO reason for a player so powerful it to capture a module that costs MORE than purchase it at Sol,
     except if it is for reasons of strategic positioning, and/or for a rare/expensive resources, and/or other reasons.

But if you remove the ability to destroy/capture modules then the game is radically different. Instead of slowly expanding a well defended set of places, you will see people in a mad scramble to put something down on every valuable spot they can find as fast as they can buy/build modules and get them out somewhere. since no one can do anything about it once you have a module there. The game becomes a simple race to reserve as much teritory as possible.
   I have at no time mentions removing the capture since it does not currently exist,
    I submit that I was removing the module destruction and replace it by module DAMAGED (or any other named), so,
    the efficiency is lower may well be pillar, and making it capturable if the need is required by the attacker.

    The limit the number of ship, what they cost, the gas planets ( not defenses unit on ground ),
      small planets (no space for defenses) that the protection of a territory a real jigsaw head,
      and remember that the system undergoes transformation due to the exhaustion of resources.
    Then not so obvious to protect a terriroire constantly evolutions.
    Otherwise, let us all pirates, like this one have nothing to lose.

My thoughts about adding an option to loot is that it is potentially more lucrative in the long run for BOTH sides.
the pirate can generate an income and get at resources that he might not otherwise be able too although at significant risk to his ships integrity. The miner is less likely to have their whole facilites wipped out, and only need to keep unloading it and resupplying the defenders to generate reasonable profits.
I reckon you should have a go at attacking a few planets with that big beastly ship you have... find out how it really is for yourself ;) Sure you can clean the boards on most of the smaller operations, but id bet a few of the better defended places would give you a run for your money.
    :sniper: Give me the coordinates where you lodge your modules with your strongest defenses and I'm trying to test destruction.
   If it helps, I am very far from system 'SOL', then you will emplement time to structure a defense, and even done any tests to protect your entire system,
   just because a planet for mining, you limit your growth.
          :)) I'm so far from 'Sol', then, when developers make change in game for 'Sol', I see it only next day.  :))
   Do you have some modules on planets? Yes, then would you want to see your modules destroyed ? No, I am certain.


 :12: Anyway that replacing destroyed by damaged modules not CHANGE anything to the game now.
     :frusty: Except for the developpers
    If we want the strategy, it is not the power that will make the game strategic, but the CHOICE.
    Otherwise, we're talking for nothing. Do you agree?

                                                :suck_kr: (Soupir... ) A very big work for me to write all this.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 09, 2012, 04:32:56 PM
Let me add this for you my space pirate  :nunu:,

As already mentioned, the potential is enormous with the fact of destruction did not have modules.

Here is another option that you love I'm sure.
 :21: Suppose that tomorrow, our developers up in some of the worlds independent systems,
       with forces and means of defenses varies. What pleasure you get from the pillars.
        :wallbash: Option to capture maybe will not exist in this independent world because, they will always rebellions for independence.
       Like the idea that you like me?

       :butcher: Other ideas can be born again in this world.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 10, 2012, 04:51:15 AM
   I have at no time mentions removing the capture since it does not currently exist,

Um, yeah it does.

Advanced Cargo Bay Mk III scooped into cargo bay.
Science Lab Mk V was captured by the attacker.


   I submit that I was removing the module destruction and replace it by module DAMAGED (or any other named), so,
    the efficiency is lower may well be pillar, and making it capturable if the need is required by the attacker.

I guess i just dont see the difference. For a newish player, between someone coming in and destroying the modules, and someone coming in and attacking, damaging, then capturing them. The new player still has no modules at the end of it. There is NO difference for them.

But like i said right at the start, I think most of the idea is great, adding an option to be able to attack and loot a planet/station without actually being forced to destroy the modules is a good idea.



Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 10, 2012, 05:46:08 AM
 hi Hi,

      You mention that we have already the option to capture module.
     :confused: I have not seen this option at least when I started the game
     Does just being introduced?
     Yes,  :arrow: so where is this option?
     No, this is NOT an option then this is only the actual result of the attack.

     If we take the fact that it costs MORE to capture a module than purchase it at Sol, then the capture come strategigue.
     So NO reason for a player so powerful it to capture a module that costs MORE than purchase it at Sol,
     except if it is for reasons of strategic positioning, and/or for a rare/expensive resources, and/or other reasons.

     So for the new player, it will be very different with what is happening at the moment. Player lost all time module.

      :sweat You make me work hard friend,
     I know that my English is not easy to understand, yet I try to say that all this would have the benefit of all players.

      :12: Anyway it's ok, we will eventually get out.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 22, 2012, 05:51:22 AM
@Emi,

Any update on when/if this might be introduced?

Hate to admit it, but I feel a little bit guilty about raising someones settlement to the ground if this change is in the pipeworks and just around the corner.... Ofcourse if its been scrapped or is unlikely to make it 'Live' anytime soon then i can carry on with a clean concience.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Sheb on October 22, 2012, 07:06:03 AM
How can you say capturing a module cost more than buying it in sol?


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 22, 2012, 11:19:13 AM
 hi Hi,

 :)) In reality it costs very expensive to repair what is damaged severely. Often better to buy new than to repair.
  
   That said, here we are talking about a game
   If we keep on doing what has been said opportunity to refresh, nothing is more frustrating than losing what has been built.

   With this in mind, and if you want to capture as well as a strategic objective
     must remain the capture module has to be more expensive than buying the system 'SOL'.

:12: Here a suggestion :
     The first cost of the capture is that in this game, it does not have the right to capture a module without defray the cost of it has its legitimate owner.
     For this, we respect the work of the player who loses his module.
      Remember that someone who has lost this module make the displacements(time) and lost civil/military.
      It is essential to get into the skin of someone who has lost his module to understand the reason for the cost.

   The second cost is the repair of the module.

   So what is going to capture a strategic action is the cost of capture module.
 
         :19: And so's me, it could be the cost DOUBLE to capture a module and I would agree.
           Capture a MIF resources to have diamond, gold, uranium or any others rare resources, I have no problems with that.
           Better to paid this cost, instead to do all work to install one MIF myself.
           For other MIF, I will keep dammaged and loot these modules without capturing it.

   Hope this will help,


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Sheb on October 22, 2012, 12:28:19 PM
Well, I'm sorry, but no. Loosing your modules should sucks. Getting something back? Maybe, but only part of the value.

What I'd suggest is to choose between looting the modules (getting what's inside, but not destroying them) or destroying them and not getting anything. A choice that would be made by the attacker.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 22, 2012, 02:36:05 PM
Well, I'm sorry, but no. Loosing your modules should sucks. Getting something back? Maybe, but only part of the value.
What I'd suggest is to choose between looting the modules (getting what's inside, but not destroying them) or destroying them and not getting anything. A choice that would be made by the attacker.
     
        
          :wounded1: Loosing a module, is cost really MORE then the value for player owner to place this module in a system. He cost time too, prospection, etc...
          :atention: Leave the choice of destruction or not a module is a choice inaceptable, since I can still choose to destroy it.
          :21: What I do in this situation:
                            I have a powerful ship, and no need for solars, and I'm in a system that a player has put several modules. I destroy, that's all.
                            I don't want to loose my time travel to come back in this system for looting.
              I can myself, or a very small group decided to destroy all the work of a couple of days (even weekends) of a player in a system.
 
              :12: Follow to this, so you can be sure I will not destroy a single one of these modules in futur,
                 player will leave the game or it will become a pirate too, and spent his frustration on another player.
                 Then there will be so many players pirates soon I will not have any modules or destroy a pillar in the systems.

                 There will be NO way for a NEW player to start in this game when the number of players will increase.
                 A nightmare even among beginners. If we want a progression in the game, it is above all give a chance to new players to love the game.

                 I think is better to capture and give more strategy in game instead of unnecessarily destruction.
              
              Do you agree with this? Did you lost some module before ?
              If no, be pleased to give me your based system, I will or maybe another player will show you what is really the cost of loosing lots modules in system.

        I say YES for refund the value of the module by the attacker. And I said NO to destroying a module.
       :))   I say YES and YES for DOUBLE cost, 1 cost for the owner, and 1 cost for the developer of the game.
    


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Sheb on October 22, 2012, 02:49:16 PM
Well, it just doesn't make sense for a pirate to destroy modules rather than loot them. Plus if you loot them, you can loot them later!

Destruction is part of the game, part of the fun. The problem or new players not being able to compete is a real one though. But it goes further than just fear of pirate, what about space? Soon, we might not have enough room for new players to drop their mine, with everybody already claiming them.

One answer  is corporations.* New players can gain protection from older players. Another answer is diversification. We need more ways to play than just mining and pirating, so new players got something to do.




*And this is partly why I didn't loose too many modules yet. My fellow corp members got my back.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 22, 2012, 03:15:53 PM
 hi Hi,

            :12: I'm starting to think I'm a little near the only one that thinks this approach to protect the modules is more viable than the current approach to destroy them.

                 I have run out of arguments, I do not know of any way be said and dwelling alone, I cease to supply this topic.



 :19: Be careful and keep secret your system, there is only way for you to survive.


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Sydney on October 23, 2012, 04:11:13 AM
Bomale,

Its very well to say the game 'should' do something, But at the moment I dont really see where you have actually explained HOW the game would do that.

I struggle to imagine anyway that the owner of a module could be compensated for its loss in a sensible way.... other than a money transfer from the guy that attacked and captured it, which doesnt really make sense if you ask me... why would a pirate, or someone your fighting a war with pay you repriations for your loss?

I also cannot imagine how you can make it more expensive for the person who captures the module to capture it than to build one themselves. You could make it so that repairing a module from fully damaged to fully repaired costs twice as much as its construction, but then a pirate seldom wants to keep a module for themselves, they are just going to sell it or scrap it, or if its not worth anything dump it in space. If your in a war and repairs are that expensive then my tactic would be to damage my oponents modules and then leave them there for them to repair.

I think i understand what your suggesting, but i cannot imagine how it can be done in a sensible way. without completly altering the style of game that AG is. Can you explain HOW you think it can be done.

Besides as Sheb mentions the risk that your stuff can be destroyed, that you can get into fights, and battles is a part of games like this, it is what attracts many players. I couldnt be bothered to play if it was another farmarama/pyramidvile set in space.




Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 23, 2012, 10:07:28 PM
 hi Hi,

Insurance is not a solution is a remedy, and makes no strategy.

I proposed a simple way:
       No more destruction module but rather damages to module.
       Endommaged module (% with minimum operation) =
       1. Can pillar module.
       2. Option to capture module. ( * ONLY High cost = STRATEGY )

     NOTE * : For the capture is not an indirect way to destroy one higher cost is required to move a strategic capture.

      :arrow: WHY would cost's more expensive to buy on 'SOL' ?    
      :4: BECAUSE it is simply a rule for the capture becomes a strategic action.
        In the same way as why:
          - the King moves only one square in the chess game,
          - we reclame is $ 200 when you PASS GO the Monopoly,
          - we pay a license for a ship or station,
          - we wait for jumping,
          - and more game rules,
          - etc...

The GOAL of this topic is to decide whether if we want to add the strategy in the game by removing the destruction of modules and set a high price to capture it.

I spend enought time on this topic.

 :)) Thank you, for your contribution. I am dyinggggggggg.................


Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Scion on October 24, 2012, 08:28:38 AM
Bomale,

There is allways Strategy in the every game. Even if the only winning strategy is to not play in the first place.

Currently a Captain can decide to

leave planet side modules undefended.
put weapons and marines on the planet with their other modules.
Put a station in orbit above the planet with only a little defence
Put a station in orbit bristling with weapons and shields.
Use a war ship to defend your planets and stations
not put down any planetside modules on the planet in the first place

These are all different strategies, and Ive seen pretty much all of them in use. No one specific one is intrinsically better than the other, it depends on the situation and where the planet is located.

Im pretty certain that you dont need to have any defence for any modules that you put down on a planet because you choose to opperate so far away from SOL. That was a strategic choice you choose to make.

I dont see how making modules costly to either capture or destroy makes the game any more strategic, it just changes the strategies that you would use.












Title: Re: We can minimize loss in planetary combat and add strategy.
Post by: Bomale on October 24, 2012, 10:02:52 AM
  hi Hello,

 You're right Scion, I had not realized he had all these strategies you mentioned in this game.

:notworthy: I am completely ignorant and stupid to have dared make such a proposal, also be sure that I will refrain from making any such proposal about strategy.

         (kboom Regarding this topic, well, we just put a better ignored or delete it if possible.)

    
  :smoke: Space is cruel, and the game must remain realistic, so be it, stop the discution since captitaine has enough to do.