Astro Galaxy - a realistic space exploration game

Feedback Terminal => Suggestions => Topic started by: sargas on May 31, 2014, 05:24:18 PM



Title: MAU
Post by: sargas on May 31, 2014, 05:24:18 PM
I would like to see an option where marines can capture instead of destroy:

" ************* sending Marines Assault Unit MK * to find a landing spot.
The landing party found an area and sabotaged it, doing ****** damage!
******* planetary force has been defeated!
Mining facility Mk I was destroyed."


I would have liked to have captured it.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on May 31, 2014, 05:54:16 PM
And yes, I can see how this might appear to be the same as JJL's cleansing.  However, this is an instance of an inactive player using a slot that I need (this Captain has not been online (here) in over 4000 hours).


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on May 31, 2014, 09:31:32 PM
From how I have seen it when doing a capture/destroy it seems to have a 50/50 chance of blowing up or capturing something.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: lisunken on May 31, 2014, 10:25:19 PM
I would like to able capture ship too.  :wow: emi please add that to the new update. :please:


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on May 31, 2014, 10:48:39 PM
I do not want ships to be capture:(


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on May 31, 2014, 10:59:07 PM
I do not want ships to be capture:(


I can understand why. There might be some who might want to try to nab some of your tech. lol.  Also the high investment would go to waste. That said, I would love for it to be possible to destroy ships. Now I wouldn't make it a high chance.  Maybe like a 5 or 10 percent chance of it actually happening if your jumped. But the percentage increases the higher safety overrides a person has. So while a person would be able to fight longer, the chances of them losing a ship would be higher. That way those are actually risking a ship's safety. As much as I would hate to lose a ship, this would add a bit more realism to the game and make PVP ship vs ship combat actually useful.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 01, 2014, 12:27:32 AM
There is already plenty of space games were you can destroy ennemy ships, go play them. If ever we can capture ships I could build ships that are the most powerfull of the game and take all ships that would cross my path. Remember, I have the best techs of the game. (this is only an hypotetical scenario lol)


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: johnnydrinkmeth on June 01, 2014, 01:03:59 AM
Perhaps we could go half way and make a PVP mode where people can "play for keeps" but by default player's aren't in this mode.

We could even do gladiatorial matches in earth orbit; give the newbies a show lol


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 01, 2014, 01:13:24 AM
Or just have a certain area outside a certain ring of quadrants that can be considered "Unregulated Space" and have more intense PvP take place there


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 01, 2014, 02:20:51 AM
There is already plenty of space games were you can destroy ennemy ships, go play them. If ever we can capture ships I could build ships that are the most powerfull of the game and take all ships that would cross my path. Remember, I have the best techs of the game. (this is only an hypotetical scenario lol)


I am talking about a low chance though. Even 1 percent would add some realism.   Safety Overrides only work until they get to 95 percent anyway. Why not make that 95 percent mean something more then just how long they can stay in battle. What if say the low chance for destruction is 1 percent. It is built into all ships. That is why they auto jump after so much damage. But the safety override increases by a percent based on the percentage that allows you to fight longer. So say you got to a max of 95%, there would be a 96% of your ship being destroyed.  Obviously of course that would make these mods a bit more useless then they already are or at least very useful. But there are some of you who are already using them so your ships can fight longer. If this thing is truly overriding the ship's safety protocols, shouldn't there be some actual risk to the safety of the ship involved?  Yes of course crew members and marines are killed. But how big of an issue is that to most of us anyways?  How often are most people even willing to go into a battle where the chances of losing are that high anyways?  Not many that is for sure.  The game needs some sort of realism when it comes to battle.  The game is supposed to strive to be realistic. PVP is already insanely unrealistic with these large timers in the first place. This would at least at a bit of realism into it.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: johnnydrinkmeth on June 01, 2014, 02:52:16 AM
@Jam

I think this'd be more of a risk for smaller players.
Let's say someone getting into the game only checks in once a day.  It'd be quite easy for their ship to be jumped by either one of the big players, or even a smaller pirate.  At that point, losing a ship, especially if you only have 1-2, would be a huge problem.   And there'd also be a much bigger incentive for big pirates to hunt down smaller players, as a new ship is quite the prize, no matter the tech/cargo onboard.

I'm a big reluctant, both from a personal standpoint and for the game, so see this brought in galaxy wide.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 01, 2014, 03:31:02 AM
@Jam

I think this'd be more of a risk for smaller players.
Let's say someone getting into the game only checks in once a day.  It'd be quite easy for their ship to be jumped by either one of the big players, or even a smaller pirate.  At that point, losing a ship, especially if you only have 1-2, would be a huge problem.   And there'd also be a much bigger incentive for big pirates to hunt down smaller players, as a new ship is quite the prize, no matter the tech/cargo onboard.

I'm a big reluctant, both from a personal standpoint and for the game, so see this brought in galaxy wide.


It is actually a lot smaller risk for smaller players. Most smaller players aren't likely to be going around using safety overrides as it is. Most prob won't get them right away as is and if they do they would be better off saving them.  Only the larger players can make really good use out of them.  But they also have more to lose. 1% is a pretty small chance.  But it might be enough to at least teach players it is better not to just let their ships sit around in orbit of planets. Especially in Sol.  There are quite a few who have fallen into that habit over time.  99% of the time though their ship would just get jumped. But that 1 percent risk might be enough to make them want to go to a safe zone.  As for larger players, losing a ship would be a huge loss. I am talking multi-million solar risk. For some like mata probably close to a billion.  It would force us all to play smarter and for ship vs ship combat to actually matter. As it stands right now it is pretty much pointless.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: lisunken on June 01, 2014, 09:59:53 AM
Sorry people if I don't make myself clear. I wish in the COM mission we can capture pirate ship as a prize. I agrees with johnnydirkmeth in PVP the low player alway will get hurt. capture ship or not.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: raphael on June 01, 2014, 10:11:37 AM
I would like to see an option where marines can capture instead of destroy:

" ************* sending Marines Assault Unit MK * to find a landing spot.
The landing party found an area and sabotaged it, doing ****** damage!
******* planetary force has been defeated!
Mining facility Mk I was destroyed."


I would have liked to have captured it.
Maybe it wasn't you who actually destroyed the modules. The defenders themselves prefer destroying it rather than falling into enemy hands. :)


I do not want ships to be capture:(


I can understand why. There might be some who might want to try to nab some of your tech. lol.  Also the high investment would go to waste. That said, I would love for it to be possible to destroy ships. Now I wouldn't make it a high chance.  Maybe like a 5 or 10 percent chance of it actually happening if your jumped. But the percentage increases the higher safety overrides a person has. So while a person would be able to fight longer, the chances of them losing a ship would be higher. That way those are actually risking a ship's safety. As much as I would hate to lose a ship, this would add a bit more realism to the game and make PVP ship vs ship combat actually useful.
I already feel sorry to all the people that I will hit if PvP will allow enemy ships to be captured. A few will retaliate, but I believe I will benefit greatly from it. There will be total chaos in the galaxy. LOL


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: lisunken on June 01, 2014, 02:11:09 PM
 :)) yes raphael may benefit from capture ship, But can you handle all the volume of ships you captured.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 01, 2014, 02:48:49 PM
Sorry people if I don't make myself clear. I wish in the COM mission we can capture pirate ship as a prize. I agrees with johnnydirkmeth in PVP the low player alway will get hurt. capture ship or not.

That would be useless.  If we could capture those, then many of us top players would be getting such a high amount of ships it isn't funny. But then we run into more problems. We can't use those ships without new ship licenses. So we have to buy more then that.  Wait we also crippled the ship so it needs new crew.  I don't think for COMs we should be able to actually capture their ships.   As for planetary. I have seen the NPCs have planetary forces. Sometimes it is one captured by an NPC on someone else on a failed mission.  Other times you can't even see it there when you look at the planet. Can't even seem to destroy it then either. lol


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on June 01, 2014, 04:32:22 PM
Sorry people if I don't make myself clear. I wish in the COM mission we can capture pirate ship as a prize. I agrees with johnnydirkmeth in PVP the low player alway will get hurt. capture ship or not.

That would be useless.  If we could capture those, then many of us top players would be getting such a high amount of ships it isn't funny. But then we run into more problems. We can't use those ships without new ship licenses. So we have to buy more then that.  Wait we also crippled the ship so it needs new crew.  I don't think for COMs we should be able to actually capture their ships.   As for planetary. I have seen the NPCs have planetary forces. Sometimes it is one captured by an NPC on someone else on a failed mission.  Other times you can't even see it there when you look at the planet. Can't even seem to destroy it then either. lol

don't forget armor repair...I don't think the salvage (resale value) would be worth the expense (unless it could be hauled back to Earth in a mothership)...


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 01, 2014, 04:55:44 PM
Sorry people if I don't make myself clear. I wish in the COM mission we can capture pirate ship as a prize. I agrees with johnnydirkmeth in PVP the low player alway will get hurt. capture ship or not.

That would be useless.  If we could capture those, then many of us top players would be getting such a high amount of ships it isn't funny. But then we run into more problems. We can't use those ships without new ship licenses. So we have to buy more then that.  Wait we also crippled the ship so it needs new crew.  I don't think for COMs we should be able to actually capture their ships.   As for planetary. I have seen the NPCs have planetary forces. Sometimes it is one captured by an NPC on someone else on a failed mission.  Other times you can't even see it there when you look at the planet. Can't even seem to destroy it then either. lol

don't forget armor repair...I don't think the salvage (resale value) would be worth the expense (unless it could be hauled back to Earth in a mothership)...

Yeah can't sell the armor even without repairing it first. lol.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: johnnydrinkmeth on June 01, 2014, 07:10:34 PM
1% is a pretty small chance.  But it might be enough to at least teach players it is better not to just let their ships sit around in orbit of planets. Especially in Sol. 

I agree with this in principle, but I think it'd be much more likely to teach 1% of players not to play astro galaxy.  Plus, I think this still leaves the problem of smaller pirates targeting new players.  Right now there's not much incentive to hit smaller players unless they attempt to mine.  If you could take over small ships, then every new player would have a target painted on their back.



Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 01, 2014, 08:02:31 PM
johnnydrinkmeth : I agree with your last post


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: johnnydrinkmeth on June 01, 2014, 08:48:57 PM
I mean JamJul I think PvP is a good idea, I've got nothing against what you're saying.

I'm just not sure how to do it in a fairmanner that is useful, but doesn't hurt anyone too much
 :confused:


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 01, 2014, 08:59:30 PM
How about destruction of individual modules? Like each module has a chance of being destroyed based on how much damage a ship takes. But only after shields and armor are penetrated


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Dadds on June 01, 2014, 09:48:37 PM
Destroying modules i think is a good idea so it again takes time to rebuild. It would give entering and losing a combat more meaning.
One game i play allows you to put on "military tags" which identifies you as someone looking for a PvP fight to the (well death i guess).
There could be some room in the game to allow those who want realism in the game while maintaining the mostly peaceful nature of the game for those who just want to mine and build stuff, or for the new players still getting the feel for the game


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 01, 2014, 10:51:48 PM
Destroying modules i think is a good idea so it again takes time to rebuild. It would give entering and losing a combat more meaning.
One game i play allows you to put on "military tags" which identifies you as someone looking for a PvP fight to the (well death i guess).
There could be some room in the game to allow those who want realism in the game while maintaining the mostly peaceful nature of the game for those who just want to mine and build stuff, or for the new players still getting the feel for the game


Tags to me are kind of crappy.  Most people aren't going to have them on as it is. Many probably won't even know they can toggle them. Most new players tend to be pretty idiotic. Look at how many don't even bother to check the forum for information first when they first start. I know this isn't the case with all new players. But it is with the majority. These are the ones we find quitting shortly after starting usually. I don't think we should be able to opt in or out on this. Keep the realism. Module destruction is a good idea. So is the idea of a small chance of a ship being destroyed.  We definitely need something to keep PVP realistic and to make ship vs ship combat actually have real risk.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: johnnydrinkmeth on June 02, 2014, 03:33:08 AM

Tags to me are kind of crappy.  Most people aren't going to have them on as it is. Many probably won't even know they can toggle them.

Perhaps to avoid what you're concerned about, PvP mode could automatically be engaged, and we could have a stage in the tutorial where newbies have to turn PvP off, and then on again.  New players will know how to do it, but the default will be to PvP.

On the other hand, maybe we could give incentives for playing PvP.  Perhaps some missions can be limited to PvP?  or rarer minerals can be found while in PvP mode?  That would give people incentive to up the risk.  As it is, I wouldn't go PvP unless I was one of the top 20.  Too easy to be squished lol!


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 02, 2014, 04:16:40 PM

Tags to me are kind of crappy.  Most people aren't going to have them on as it is. Many probably won't even know they can toggle them.

Perhaps to avoid what you're concerned about, PvP mode could automatically be engaged, and we could have a stage in the tutorial where newbies have to turn PvP off, and then on again.  New players will know how to do it, but the default will be to PvP.

On the other hand, maybe we could give incentives for playing PvP.  Perhaps some missions can be limited to PvP?  or rarer minerals can be found while in PvP mode?  That would give people incentive to up the risk.  As it is, I wouldn't go PvP unless I was one of the top 20.  Too easy to be squished lol!


With PVP being optional, there are still people who will turn it off and never turn it back on. So what will you do if they are taking up an entire planet your wanting to mine on? What if they occupy almost and entire system but then go inactive?  You can't clear them out cause PVP is off.  PVP shouldn't be able to be turned off at all. If people don't want to be hit they just need to play a little smarter. They also need to realize that everyone gets hit at some point and it isn't the end of the world.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 02, 2014, 06:46:03 PM
JJL: You can do all that with the system like it is right now!


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: johnnydrinkmeth on June 02, 2014, 09:29:22 PM

With PVP being optional, there are still people who will turn it off and never turn it back on. So what will you do if they are taking up an entire planet your wanting to mine on?

Sorry JamJul, I was getting a little mixed up I guess.  I'd allow people to hit mines/stations and jump ships no matter whether PvP was on or not (so maybe PvP isn't the right word...) but I'd also allow people to sign up for a form of the game where (as rostin said) their modules could be hit) or as you said, their ships could be lost.  That'd allow Dadds and Raph to slug it out, without making a target out of a new SEA graduate, and without allowing people to clog up planets with inactive mines.

One of the things I've been quite keen on is tracking pirates, so perhaps if you want to go PvP and steal ships, people can also track down your ships and take you out. PvP would have some interesting possibilities :)


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 02, 2014, 09:42:35 PM

With PVP being optional, there are still people who will turn it off and never turn it back on. So what will you do if they are taking up an entire planet your wanting to mine on?

Sorry JamJul, I was getting a little mixed up I guess.  I'd allow people to hit mines/stations and jump ships no matter whether PvP was on or not (so maybe PvP isn't the right word...) but I'd also allow people to sign up for a form of the game where (as rostin said) their modules could be hit) or as you said, their ships could be lost.  That'd allow Dadds and Raph to slug it out, without making a target out of a new SEA graduate, and without allowing people to clog up planets with inactive mines.

One of the things I've been quite keen on is tracking pirates, so perhaps if you want to go PvP and steal ships, people can also track down your ships and take you out. PvP would have some interesting possibilities :)


I still think it should be all or nothing on actual damage to ship modules/destruction of ships.    There should be no opt in or out. What is to prevent someone from going after someone else that is opted in. Do a lot of damage.  Then suddenly opt out again so they can't have it done to them.  This isn't about voluntary combat.  It is about making combat in general a bit more realistic. Making ship vs ship combat actually worth it.  As it stands right now if two groups are at war, the only way anyone can do any real damage at all is to hit mines and stations. That is easier said then done.  Especially when some people don't have mines at all. So how do you defeat an enemy that says only really has a lot of ships?  Well you can't right now.  You can jump a ship but it doesn't really accomplish anything. In order to even be sure you get the hit in, at the levels of the big players that means a lot of QP spent. Making it not worth while for the attacker to even hit them since the damage received is so minor.   People sit and think that low level player might fall victim to higher level players if something like this was added in.  Let me ask you this, why would we want to waste time on trying to destroy their ships?  I might hit people occasionally when I got a COM at a place. But I am not going out of my way to hit them.  There is also a very large attack timer when it happens. Which gives them more then enough time to get their stuff out of the way. Now of course we can use lower power ships ourselves for smaller timers. But that still requires them to be offline to be sure the attack will even go through.  Most smart players know better to just leave weaker ships just sitting around anyways. Perhaps with an added chance of modules being destroyed at the very least it might help even the dumber players to realize the importance of not leaving their ships just laying around. 


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 02, 2014, 10:00:19 PM

I still think it should be all or nothing on actual damage to ship modules/destruction of ships.    There should be no opt in or out. What is to prevent someone from going after someone else that is opted in. Do a lot of damage.  Then suddenly opt out again so they can't have it done to them.  This isn't about voluntary combat.  It is about making combat in general a bit more realistic. Making ship vs ship combat actually worth it.  As it stands right now if two groups are at war, the only way anyone can do any real damage at all is to hit mines and stations. That is easier said then done.  Especially when some people don't have mines at all. So how do you defeat an enemy that says only really has a lot of ships?  Well you can't right now.  You can jump a ship but it doesn't really accomplish anything. In order to even be sure you get the hit in, at the levels of the big players that means a lot of QP spent. Making it not worth while for the attacker to even hit them since the damage received is so minor.   People sit and think that low level player might fall victim to higher level players if something like this was added in.  Let me ask you this, why would we want to waste time on trying to destroy their ships?  I might hit people occasionally when I got a COM at a place. But I am not going out of my way to hit them.  There is also a very large attack timer when it happens. Which gives them more then enough time to get their stuff out of the way. Now of course we can use lower power ships ourselves for smaller timers. But that still requires them to be offline to be sure the attack will even go through.  Most smart players know better to just leave weaker ships just sitting around anyways. Perhaps with an added chance of modules being destroyed at the very least it might help even the dumber players to realize the importance of not leaving their ships just laying around. 
As for the red part, I'm sure Emi would incorporate a system similar to the changing of captain names (once a month) which would prevent a lot of abuse. However, I completely agree with you JJ; PvP and Corp wars are absolutely meaningless without substantial assets at risk. And as an off topic question; does the number of "Active Captains" listed on the Top Ranking tab actually reflect the number of captains that have logged in within a certain amount of time? Or is it just every single player with an account? lol


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JoolzVern on June 02, 2014, 11:00:53 PM
The accounts are numbered sequentially so it must be within a certain amount of time because it shows 862 active and you're user #3641.

I think having ships captured/destroyed is preferable to losing modules otherwise anyone with a big com ship would need to carry spare modules and build more because they'd be losing one every other battle. I don't want to build the modules for a ship constantly like it's always a work in progress. Unlike modules, if the ship itself got captured/destroyed there's a possibility you could re-capture it or capture another etc.

As for the arguments about the big players getting a big advantage for it- that's what balance is all about. If such a policy is adopted correctly Mata or Raph would ideally be incapable of *reliably* capaturing ships just as everyone else, but also would not be able to *reliably* prevent us from capturing theirs. There's no reason we can't do it without limiting Mata/Raph's capability to capture/destroy everything lol. Carefully thought out limits should be set, but if done right I think it would add to the game's realism and depth.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 02, 2014, 11:03:47 PM
That makes sense, and I guess it's unlikely that 2500+ people have actually deleted their accounts...


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: raphael on June 03, 2014, 01:06:08 AM
Let me ask you this, why would we want to waste time on trying to destroy their ships? 

Not true for me. I will attack and destroy everyone if it's implemented. BWAHAHAHAHA!


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: johnnydrinkmeth on June 03, 2014, 01:43:43 AM
I guess my concern is that raph has 40 odd ships, and may find attacking with a 1% chance of stealing a ship worthwhile, especially if his attack ships only need 500,000 power or so.

If we make the chance of losing the ship so low as to not hurt new captains, I wonder if it would really add to the realism of the game overall.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 03, 2014, 02:38:05 AM
Let me ask you this, why would we want to waste time on trying to destroy their ships? 

Not true for me. I will attack and destroy everyone if it's implemented. BWAHAHAHAHA!


What happens though when you do that and make more enemies though? Unlike before you could actually end up losing ships yourself. True many of yours are very strong. But not all of them. Some can still be beat. I am sure if you went after EOS you would have to deal with mata.  Of course this would also put your corp members as risk as well cause then they would have more enemies as well thanks to you.  Sure you could build more ships but can they? Also it takes time and solars to build more ships. The more you lose, the less your income becomes. I am sure Dadds would love this in particular.  Also you would find not all of us are so easy to locate. Even our COM ships can be difficult to find. When the galaxy expands, so will the rate in how far out many of us will go to do them.  Raph lets face it you may not care if you got a lot of enemies, but I am sure your corp members don't want a lot.  As the leader of SSS you have a responsibility for your members.  Just as I have a responsibility to TGE.  This is why I put my people first.   That is exactly why when Dadds declared war on us and ITO that I felt the need to call off all attacks against you and your corp.  My people don't need to fight a war on multiple fronts. Not to mention none of us have any personally beef with you.  Right now Dadds has done a good job getting us to focus more on him. I would think you would welcome that considering it wasn't that long ago that the shoe was on the other foot. Since IMG's declaration of war, more people have actually joined SSS. That is mostly due to the fact that SSS isn't public enemy number 1 anymore. New players don't want to get dragged into a war much less be a part of a corp that has everyone against them.  As it is right now, no one can do any real damage with ship vs ship damage as it is.  But if someone was public enemy number 1 and a chance of ships being destroyed was added in, it would raise the bar.  It means for such corps it would become even harder to get new members for fear of having their ships destroyed. 

There is of course some benefits of having it all added in.  Besides more realism from combat, it might help to get newer players to join established Corps rather then try to form their own 1 man ones and then eventually quit themselves. Those that have stuck around so far I think would have continued to stick around even if this was already added in.  Players who would quit over something like this being added in are likely ones that would have found some other reason to quit.  That said there should be something in place though that in the event someone has all their ships destroyed, that the Sol Corperation itself will give someone a free shuttle as compensation equipped with the basic necessities.  This way new players won't get completely discouraged if all their ships get destroyed. Though a smart player will learn quickly not to just let their ships sit anywhere in sol.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: raphael on June 03, 2014, 02:58:18 AM
Enough talk. As soon as it's a project (though I doubt it will), you can all lean back. I will personally fund the entire project and make sure it will be top priority.

We will then see how much of what you said will come true.  :)


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 03, 2014, 03:28:01 AM
Enough talk. As soon as it's a project (though I doubt it will), you can all lean back. I will personally fund the entire project and make sure it will be top priority.

We will then see how much of what you said will come true.  :)

Fair enough.  But just keep in mind what I said.   I don't want you as an enemy man.  Besides if it is ever added in I think you and dadds will have a ton of fun just trying to blow each other up. lol. You probably will end up forgetting about the rest of us since you will be having so much fun with him.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 03, 2014, 09:44:08 AM
Ralph said: "Not true for me. I will attack and destroy everyone if it's implemented. BWAHAHAHAHA!"

I would do exactly the same. Why, like in all other games where you can kill the ennemy ships, it is the only way to be safe, to stay on top, to eliminate the competition, to prevent other to become big. I want to win, then I take the means to acheive it.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: lisunken on June 03, 2014, 12:00:04 PM
This will change alot way to play this game.  But we still need a safe guard for the low and new players. What if you can only attack ship in yor ship power range. So you can't pick on weak players and still have full bloodly fight to death.  Like jj say I can see two people will go full round taking ships apart. 


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 03, 2014, 05:53:14 PM
This will change alot way to play this game.  But we still need a safe guard for the low and new players. What if you can only attack ship in yor ship power range. So you can't pick on weak players and still have full bloodly fight to death.  Like jj say I can see two people will go full round taking ships apart. 


That won't work because people can just power up and down their ships.  SirEmi has such a system in place in another one of his games. it is based on overall power.  So people on there found ways to shift there ways up and down the leader board so they can pretty much hit anyone. 


Quote
I would do exactly the same. Why, like in all other games where you can kill the ennemy ships, it is the only way to be safe, to stay on top, to eliminate the competition, to prevent other to become big. I want to win, then I take the means to acheive it.


That is also a very good way to make enemies too. Also I am pretty sure your corp leader wouldn't like it if you started doing that. After all isn't EoS supposed to be peaceful?  Also consider this, if this was added in, that would mean you likely could lose your ships on COM missions as well.  So if we couldn't beat you in ship vs ship combat, we likely would just dump COM after COM on you when your doing them at in a smaller system.  It appears Dadds is already doing that to Raph and possibly you.  Imagine if more people started doing it?  It leaves you with an option eventually of trying it and risking losing a ship or just saying to hell with it and going somewhere else to do COMs.   Also if both you and raph were to start going nuts like that, you would bound to eventually run into each other and bump heads.  So a conflict between the both of you could actually end up leaving you both with less ships giving the rest of us a chance to catch up.  Of course then there will be Dadds who will be gunning for you both for sure if your both going around attacking everyone.  I know he may seem like a pesky bug to you guys, but even a bug can sometimes bring down larger animals.

If this is added in, TGE is going to be much as it is now. We will maintain our current NAPs. We won't be going around just destroying everyone. I honestly don't care if you guys go after other people. But I do expect EoS to not break our NAP. 


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 03, 2014, 06:53:06 PM
JJl it is war you are talking about (droping COMs on me). Since you have decided what I would do, let me share what I think you want to do with this suggestion. You want to run down on sol system and hit everything you can and do the same at the surrounding systems, destrying ships and modules and capturing ships and modules. Since you are not able to hit us, you said it, you would drop COMs on me and Ralph.

And it is exactly what you have done in the past, you only want to do it with more damage to the small and inocent newbies. It is your sadistic fun but it is not mine this is why I think that suggestion is not a good idea.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 03, 2014, 07:32:26 PM
I'd prefer not to lose my ships :please: thx


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 03, 2014, 07:34:30 PM
JJl it is war you are talking about (droping COMs on me). Since you have decided what I would do, let me share what I think you want to do with this suggestion. You want to run down on sol system and hit everything you can and do the same at the surrounding systems, destrying ships and modules and capturing ships and modules. Since you are not able to hit us, you said it, you would drop COMs on me and Ralph.

And it is exactly what you have done in the past, you only want to do it with more damage to the small and inocent newbies. It is your sadistic fun but it is not mine this is why I think that suggestion is not a good idea.



The only COM I dropped on you recently I already mentioned here on the forum.  I haven't done it since then.  I am just mentioning it as a viable tactic against bigger players. Especially if this is added in and they decide to go nuts attacking everyone.  You just said it yourself on here that you would go around attacking everyone yourself if this was added in.  Now suddenly you are accusing me of wanting to be able to go around destroying newbies left and right.  That isn't the case at all.   I hardly attack anymore.  When I do it is usually when I am doing a COM at a location.  This is not likely to change any if destruction of ships or at least modules on ships is added in.   It is rare for me these days to do sweeps of Sol.  The only people I might even go out of my to destroy their ships is those in IMG. That is just because we are at war with them.

I swear so many people want to paint me as the evil villain.  That isn't the case at all.  I don't go around destroying everyone I can.  I don't go around looking for newbies to pick on.  I don't fly off the handle at people's opinions and declare wars.  If I was about trying to hurt other players do you honestly think TGE would have NAPs with EoS, ITO, NHC and BRU.    Yes I am aware the last is a 1 person corp but the guy who started it is a good guy and is trying to build his own corp.  I don't make NAPs because I am afraid of bigger players.  I make NAPs for the good of my people and the good of other players.  If I was about destroying people we wouldn't have NAPs with anyone and a good portion of Sargas's stations and mines would already be lost.  There would be a lot of other players in the game constantly under attack as well.   I don't want to destroy anyone except maybe Dadds at the moment. To be honest I don't even feel much like fighting with him.  I have actually gone out of my way to help some smaller players become better players.  I have done this to the point where it has actually stunted my own growth within the game.  I am not just talking about helping out people in my corp.  I have helped other corps as well.  


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on June 03, 2014, 07:53:06 PM
The EoS is indeed a peaceful corporation, however...


...we do have teeth...


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 03, 2014, 08:04:53 PM
The EoS is indeed a peaceful corporation, however...


...we do have teeth...


I know you do.  I never said you didn't. But Mata saying he would do what Raph said he would do if this was added in doesn't look good for you guys. If Mata went off his rocker and went after everyone, you would likely either have to talk some sense into him or he would have to leave your corp.  Otherwise it makes the rest of EoS not look so peaceful.  The thing is though, you guys need Mata. So if you were to lose him you would lose some of your teeth. 


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 03, 2014, 08:12:47 PM
Let's not put the wheelcart before the horse please.

All that is only speculations at one exception: I will not accept that any one attack me or anyone of my corp. The teeth are there lol


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 03, 2014, 09:02:45 PM
Ralph said: "Not true for me. I will attack and destroy everyone if it's implemented. BWAHAHAHAHA!"

I would do exactly the same. Why, like in all other games where you can kill the ennemy ships, it is the only way to be safe, to stay on top, to eliminate the competition, to prevent other to become big. I want to win, then I take the means to acheive it.


These words are not speculation. It is what you said. 


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 03, 2014, 09:12:53 PM
"if it's implemented" if this is not speculation then I do not know what is speculation lol


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 03, 2014, 09:16:35 PM
You were saying if it was added in you would do that.  That isn't speculation. Now if you had said "I might think about doing that myself", then that is speculation. It's one thing to consider all options and possibilities. It is another to outright say you would do something if something was added in.  Speculation leaves an uncertainty. What you said leaves an utmost certainty that you would do it if added in.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 03, 2014, 10:41:23 PM
Speculating vs. Foreshadowing


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Dadds on June 06, 2014, 01:57:53 PM
Quote
And as an off topic question; does the number of "Active Captains" listed on the Top Ranking tab actually reflect the number of captains that have logged in within a certain amount of time? Or is it just every single player with an account? lol
Probably a question for Sir Emi.
As for the original subject, what were we talking about again? lol


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 06, 2014, 03:24:01 PM
I think it was about marines being able to capture ships...


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JoolzVern on June 06, 2014, 11:49:46 PM
I still think the right implementation could give everyone else a balanced chance at capturing their ships as well, even if they're basically maxed out on everything and you're not. Of course even if it's just pirate ships I think we should be able to capture- but maybe we have to sell them if we don't have a license and maybe need a hangar big enough to transport them to auction.

However, I don't think marines could achieve this blance. If we capture ships based solely off combat stats clearly the big players will dominate, so it has to be around a separate 'equation'.  Like maybe a flat chance(like the 'regeneration rate' of minerals) coupled/governed with certain variables/stats and capped limits on how much those stats affect that chance.

So, if say Raph were to attack a ship, and has a 10% chance to take a ship, that's ok I think so long as everyone has a similar/fair chance when they attack him- even if he should be able to beat them in combat. He'd still get a lot of ships and maybe maintain superiority and keep growing, but other active players could do the same and even take his ships so I think rather than making it likely he would dominate, I think it would just as much offer others more opportunity to challenge his position.

This is why I suggested that this be done through combat speed and a tractor beam, where if you got caught in the beam you couldn't attack and not only lose, but *could* get your ship captured.

Then it would only be a matter of balancing odds where the tractor beam could still have a fair shot at holding Raph even with super combat speed while still having your combat speed reduce your risk of losing to his tractor beam while never offering full immunity to anyone and the tractor beam never guaranteeing a capture.

Notice that this way, while Raph might still get a lot of ships from players, Mata, or even a fairly weak player could manage to attack with 1:9999999 odds(assuming they could get past the timer lol) and capture Raph's biggest and best ship with his 10% chance of capture and Raph's 20% resistance from combat speed reducing it to 8%.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on June 07, 2014, 12:26:23 AM
this thread has nothing to do with 'ship capture'...

go back and re-read it...


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 07, 2014, 12:27:00 AM
JoolzVern: Let say I build a very cheap ship that cost me 2 millions to build and I use it to attack the biggest ship Ralph has, let say a titan that has cost Ralph 350 millions. If I follow your suggestion you say that I would have a chance to capture Ralph ship. For me it is completely unfair and illogical. You say "If we capture ships based solely off combat stats clearly the big players will dominate". This is exactly that, us big players we dominate. You want to beat us, no problem, work hard and become a big player too. Do not try to give power to smaller player that will render the game unfair to big players.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on June 07, 2014, 12:30:54 AM
what he said...


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 07, 2014, 09:35:23 AM
Sorry Sargas, I guess it was about capturing planetary modules


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JoolzVern on June 07, 2014, 01:08:16 PM
If I follow your suggestion you say that I would have a chance to capture Ralph ship. For me it is completely unfair and illogical. ... Do not try to give power to smaller player that will render the game unfair to big players.

lol Yeah like a 8% chance of you losing your ship is going to make it unfair. Boo hoo.

It's absurd to say the idea that big players being able lose ships is unfair or illogical when you and everybody else has that same power. It wouuld be unfair only if imbalanced in favor of small players.

Seems to me you're not afraid it will be unfair to big players, but that you'd lose the unfair advantage you have now. You want to be invincible to most players and call that fair because you built yourself up. I think that no matter what you should be able to lose, and lose actual stuff even if only a small chance.

Big players would still have a fair chance to remain that way while having a small chance at losing unlike now where a powerful enough ship is practically invincible against a smaller player.

If you were to really attack a player like me, there's zero chance your engines will die, crew will bail, or anything that could let me win. Not even a 1 in 100 chance. If don't think adding a single digit chance to lose makes it unfair for you just because you worked so hard to be unstoppable. I think letting you remain practically 100% unstoppable is unfair.

And yes the thread was about capturing modules but lisunken brought up ship capture and I agree it should be implemented even if only against pirates.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 07, 2014, 04:11:31 PM
JoolzVern said: "Seems to me you're not afraid it will be unfair to big players, but that you'd lose the unfair advantage you have now."

This is the point, my advantage is not unfair. I worked hard for it and you can have the same advantage if you work hard. And do not come and tell me it is not possible to move ahead of me, Ralph has done it, You have no excuses.

What is unfair is having a module that took 4 months and millions to build and having a newbie come and capture it.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JamJulLison on June 07, 2014, 06:13:58 PM
JoolzVern: Seems to me you're not afraid it will be unfair to big players, but that you'd lose the unfair advantage you have now.

This is the point, my advantage is not unfair. I worked hard for it and you can have the same advantage if you work hard. And do not come and tell me it is not possible to move ahead of me, Ralph has done it, You have no excuses.

What it unfair is having a module that took 4 months and millions to build and having a newbie come and capture it.

This is why I think a chance of a ship being destroyed is fair.   Module theft should not be an option. Your marines are marines. They aren't technicians who rip just take apart modules and move them. Especially in the middle of combat on an enemy vessel.  It isn't like looting some kind of cargo bay. After the mission, you need to take what you need quickly and then get out of there. 

The best 2 options on this subject would be the following.

A. Ship Destruction.  A low chance of a ship being destroyed. Say 1 percent.  This have safety overrides increase the chance of a ship being destroyed. The Auto Jump feature is there to minimize the chances of ship being destroyed. Story wise that is where it is there.  It even jumps you to a safe zone. If your overriding that feature on a ship to fight longer, you should be increasing the chance of losing your ship.

B. Module Damage and Destruction  It always seemed odd to me that we can lose people but the modules themselves are never damaged. Well unless you count armor. The more you fight without your shields up and no armor, the more damage that should be actually done to the ship itself.  So lots of people can just die, but the modules instantly are repaired?  Can't really believe this story wise cause on the off chance they got awesome super nanobots that instantly repairing the ship to quick, that it isn't capable of doing the same for the armor.  Module's should be able to be damaged. Possibly it is possible to repair them as we do armor.  With safety overrides since you can fight longer, it should be made that the higher the damage you take without shields, especially with high MK ones, the greater the damage to your ships modules.  Of course we keep the crew loss as it is. 

Both of these ideas would finally give ship vs ship combat a real purpose.  You could also apply some of the changes to stations and planets.  I can't see a station not taking some module damage from a looting. Though the amount of damage would likely be low.  Like it would be on a ship without safety overrides.  Though for the bigger players, our damage if likely to be quite a bit higher just cause of our stronger weapons.  Even higher odds of 100 percent damage to some modules.  This of course will completely destroy it making it impossible to repair. Now I know this makes it hard on a smaller player if a bigger player hits them.  But most of us aren't going to waste time on them.  Nor will we waste QP to actually be able to hit them with larger MK stuff.   Either we might let the timer count down at a COM that we try to hit them at or we use smaller ships with much lower power to hit them.  Usually with tech, or at least power set on the tech to be at their own levels. So even with that method they shouldn't be taking more actual damage then they would at their level anyways. At their level none are using super overrides, or likely will anyways, so the damage they are taking should be easily repaired.   Taking around 1 to 3 percent at most to some modules.And prob not a lot getting damaged.  Also the chances for damage to some modules should be higher. Such as weapons and shields more likely to take actual damage. Also there should be something to figure out where about the ship was actually hit.  Maybe it shows us in the battle the area hit. So depending on where it is hit, there is a higher chance of damage in those ares if it is hit while the shields are down.  Maybe even us options on each of our weapons that we can choose to set if we want it to concentrate on certain part of the ship or spread out the shots.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on June 07, 2014, 10:54:11 PM
to get back to the original topic, I would like to see this:

LOOT, CAPTURE, or DESTROY as 3 different options and not LOOT or CAPTURE/DESTROY...just make CAPTURE harder than DESTROY.

as far as the 'ship-jacked' topic is concerned, I am against it.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Rostin on June 07, 2014, 10:55:57 PM
Do you think stations should be capturable? They have the same options as planetary modules


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on June 07, 2014, 10:58:02 PM
no


destroyed yes, captured no (unless the above ^ is  implemented)...


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Dadds on June 08, 2014, 01:11:53 PM
simple thing here: if a ship overcomes another ship, and you want to introduce "pink slips" where the one who beats the other one takes all the spoils so be it. There is no way in hell that a tiny vessel should somehow miraculously take possession of an opponents warship without winning the field of battle first based on a die roll.  That is how i read this thread. Perhaps i misread it though the sentiment is there. you want my ship, come and beat me in a fair fight to earn it!


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Matamaure001 on June 08, 2014, 06:22:22 PM
I agree with your last post Dadds


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: sargas on June 08, 2014, 07:30:26 PM
to get back to the original topic, I would like to see this:

LOOT, CAPTURE, or DESTROY as 3 different options and not LOOT or CAPTURE/DESTROY...just make CAPTURE harder than DESTROY.  1

as far as the 'ship-jacked' topic is concerned, I am against it.

this is what the original topic was meant to read.

Ship capture is in another thread, (don't be lazy) re-read and respond to that topic over there where it belongs...


1for example, if looting takes 1X hours, and Capture/Destroy takes 2X hours (as it is now), just add this:

Loot - 1X hours, Destroy - 2X hours, and Capture 3X hours.


(edit to edit my previous statement)


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: JoolzVern on June 09, 2014, 12:19:21 AM
to get back to the original topic, I would like to see this:

LOOT, CAPTURE, or DESTROY as 3 different options and not LOOT or CAPTURE/DESTROY...just make CAPTURE harder than DESTROY.  1

as far as the 'ship-jacked' topic is concerned, I am against it.

this is what the original topic was meant to read.

Ship capture is in another thread, (don't be lazy) re-read and respond to that topic over there where it belongs...


1for example, if looting takes 1X hours, and Capture/Destroy takes 2X hours (as it is now), just add this:

Loot - 1X hours, Destroy - 2X hours, and Capture 3X hours.


(edit to edit my previous statement)

I think SirEmi put it like that to make certain you wouldn't be able to choose if you capture or destroy to avoid everyone capturing and few modules being destroyed ever. Even if it's harder people will capture and this throws off the game balance. I also don't think it's lazy to continue to discuss ship capture since lisunken brought it up. Sorry for digressing but it's lisunken's fault lol.


...no way in hell that a tiny vessel should somehow miraculously take possession of an opponents warship without winning the field of battle first based on a die roll.  That is how i read this thread. Perhaps i misread it though the sentiment is there. you want my ship, come and beat me in a fair fight to earn it!

No, what I propose goes something like this:
The first wave of combat wouldn't be combat, but a seperate dice roll to determine if anyone gets caught in a tractor beam provided they have one. Something like combat speed would affect  it, but even the best advantage would still only have a small chance of catching someone and paralyzing their ship- and only one ship per battle.

Then you'd have the normal battle 'based on a die roll', only where the paralyzed ship could not attack. This doesn't mean you'd lose, or lose the ship necessarily. You could endure the battle, and just take some extra damage. But there's a small chance that when paralyzed even a big ship could still get commandeered. So if say with the best odds of like 20% on your tractor beam you paralyze the enemy. You then have maybe a 10% max chance for your marines to capture the crippled ship in battle.

With those odds, this setup would mean that your overall chance of capturing/being captured under optimum conditions would be 2% and the max buff could be capped to bring it to maybe 1-1.5% where at best Raph would have a 2 in 100 chance of capturing a ship per battle and at worst you'd have a 1-1.5% chance to get his. Big players would have only a marginal advantage, and smaller players would have a very slim chance to luck out and win despite what would otherwise be overwhelming odds.

And Mata, I think it is unfair if there's practically no chance of a ship losing simply because it's stats are very superior and no chance of anyone losing a ship regardless. There should be a chance for your ship to lose anyway. I mean granted in a fight between David and Goliath the big guy usually wins, but not necessarily as in the story of David and Goliath. The fact you CAN'T lose as the proverbial Goliath, is unfair and unrealistic. Sure I could build myself up past you, but that's beside the point entirely. This is about realism, balance, and introducing real loss to the dynamic, not the fact that you're big and I'm not.


Title: Re: MAU
Post by: Antilak on March 01, 2017, 03:19:09 PM
I know this thread is 2.5 years old, but....

I like Sargas's idea. I encountered this many times where I wanted to just capture some miners and then send them to owner, or at least send a payment to them of comparable sum. Capturing their miners would allow you to either send them or to pay the other player for most of the loss of their miners. The best option would be a way to mail/send the miners after you capture them.

I would expect capturing should require more marines and/or more time for the mission to complete.

I understand JoolzVern about how it disturb game balance since capturing miners is easy and miners can be expensive, so most players might choose to capture. Perhaps one way to get around this is not allow the capturing player to use the module, but instead can only sell or send it to the original owner. This actually might make sense, since modules might have encryption codes only the owner possesses.

Also if a player is placing extremely valuable modules on a planet then why would they also leave them defenseless? I started protecting my prospector missions with combat-capable ships. I know it's inefficient, but otherwise I risk another player destroying them. Prospector missions aren't balanced since combat CAN be involved via PvP--so the reward SHOULD be higher than it's now. Nonetheless, highly valuable miners on planets aren't going to (and shouldn't) easily be captured if they're defended.

Another thing worth pointing out is currently autoloading is capped at 6 hour intervals. So how much your station will autoload from the planet is limited by the load size of the miners and hte number of miners on the planet. For normal miners, this is about MK 165. You don't need better miners if you're relying on autoload. So any hypothetical capture isn't going to net much better unless players are using the universal miners (making advantage of the larger load size) or are loading between the 6 hour intervals.

This idea has less significance now that stars nova, but it could still be useful for players who do prospector missions.

One problem--I guess--is you need to donate at least $5 to send payments to other players. Would need to be another option for froobs. Perhaps allow non-paying players to send items/QP to other players in a limited amount? Or to send captured things free?

EDIT: I want to be clear about what JoolzVern said. Essentially, if miners are easy to capture and tend to be high MK or valuable, almost every player will choose to capture them. This could mess up the game balance by greatly increasing the incentive to attack planet modules. Imagine finding a universal miner someone dumbly left behind? Wouldn't you capture it? You absolutely would, especially if capture was 100%, even if it required double or triple the time. Currently, universal miners are only purchasable with QP.

When I was doing prospector missions, my biggest liability were gas giants, since they tended to have more module space. I might be able to put 40 atmospheric miners on a gas giant, or even more. For 40 slots, that's 741855 x 40 = 29,674,200 solars. For advanced it's maybe 42 million solars. This is why I started protecting my prospector missions with combat-capable ships.