I've invested quite a lot in this game in two sessions, I think my viewpoint has as much right to be heard as anyone's, but it's not. As a matter of fact, I havn't spent any money on the game since the changes were implemented, but fair enough - I'll Email tomorrow and ask for my remaining balance to be remitted back to my KJC account, where I can play IAC for a month or two. There you are - have the game back to yourself.

I didn't think that the forum differentiated matters on how much money we paid into the game

Yes, there has to be some consideration for how any change affects the people who pay to play - this is a commercial venture for KJC and David, not a hobby after all. But so long as that is done on a generic "how would this affect income" rather than "How would this affect Joe Bloggs" I can't see any reason whatsoever to condemn it.

Beyond that, the only evaluation criteria I've seen put into use so far is "what does it do to the game in the long term?" and "does it make sense to do this?". David and Mica are continually having to walk a tightrope between sorting out a problem with the game's dynamics and pissing off half the players - in my opinion they need to be given a lot more credit for they way they have managed it so far

Unfortunately it is more in human nature for people to gripe about things they think aren't perfact, rather than to give praise where they think it is due....

Dan

IIRC it has been stated that lifeform sales are being recorded and will be taken into account when the upgrade is complete.

splitting things into your paragraphs:

you're right it's not just about space battles - from what was said here, Mica and David were thinking that they could leave sorting the hull imbalance until later - until they ran some simulations and saw that later would be too late and that the game balance would be permanently destroyed

Yes, the infrastructure update has been long in it's arrival, but there have been several things - both in-game and in RL - which have meant that it's not here yet. SImple at that. While I'd love for it to appear tomorrow (or today even!), I'd rather wait another year than have them put in a half-complete update "just to shut the players up". For your eggs and so on, every sentient lifeform that has ever been 'sold' to any planet has been recorded, so that the effect of the increased population (good or bad...)can be given when the update occurs. This has been repeated several times (although not recently I admit). Perhaps we should collate the subjects that David and Mica have said "this WILL be true" because this is one that's come up a few times and I can understand their frustration in having to repeat things like that!

Everybody's interest in the game waxes and wanes - and the trigger for that is different for each person. For me the recent changes did little to motivate or demotivate - if anything it had a positive effect, as it reinforced the feeling that there would still be a game to play in a few years time...

Dan

My point is that the disadvantage is not to affs at all, but individuals/new groups - who now can even try to wage war against the 'GTT' say, other than one of the existing groups who got their warship building in while it was still cheap? Seventeen months effort would have to be matched by 5+ years by any new group.

Given yesterdays comments by this forums owner, now deleted, I am sure that David at least does read the yahoo board, and definitely doesn't want any further discussion on here, or anywhere else.

You think a new aff could have taken on the GTT under the old rules (which also allowed the GTT to produce at the lower rates) ?

Do not loose sight of maintenance costs.

It means that production is 'lost each week' to those with fleets, obviously the larger the fleet, the greater the percentage of production that cannot be applied to making more ships, building modules etc.

These effectively limit the size of the fleet.

Without the changes, 17 months effort by a new faction would be weighted against 17 months effort by an established one.

Result - they would always have had proportionally more ships at all times in the future.

Unless of course it is believed that all established factions are stupid and sit back once they have 'made it'.

time for more red big letters - apparently ppl read big red letters more.

I don't give dates until i'm working on something, don't mis quote me - it pisses me off

Oh look here's what i wrote.

What happened was the online order editor took me 3 months to get right, along with the bugs and illness we are here:)

This is all very nice and all, but if the space battle/maintenance cost of fleets was not solved first, there was a real danger that the game could become untenable.

If your car needed a new spray and you had started saving towards it... what would you do if the engine looked like it was about to drop out? Get is sprayed anyway and scrap it as you can no longer afford to fix it?

Sometime things come up that you had not accounted for, but they take priority through necessity. It is not just Phoenix, but the very nature of the universe - even my fortune telling 8-ball sometimes fails to give me a heads-up.

Actually, if you looked into the new costs of warships the increase of maintain costs is certainly a big deal.. I bet lots of big warships owners are building now new factories to compensate for the increased costs.
It might be nice, if Mica could give us an rough estimate (in total) of the amount of extra production needed per week for the increased hull patches.. This way all those without an big warfleet can see what the ingame expense of the increase hull patch cost is.

Hi David,

And haven't mis quoted anyone here. Mica or you stated that the infrastructure update would be ready within a 'couple of months' when I asked in June last year.

You are free to be pissed off if you want.

The list you quoted I believe came somewhat later than June 203.

Cheers,

Peter

Check your political report. It specificially tells you at the start of your fleet report.

Hi Mica,

I agree, but that problem was not around in June 203, was it?

Yes thats right it was september but then thats the first time you posted about infra strcuture.
Your Post

Unless your post has been deleted or you did it under a different name ?

And yes i'm getting pissed off with some ppls attitudes, to the extent where i will just not visit here again.

In general terms, I think the change from before is as follows :

Heavy Hulls - now 50 times more expensive in maintenance
Normal Hull - now 10 times more expensive in maintenance
Light and Xlight keep the same maintenance cost.

if my maths is right

Mark

Okay..

An single 100 hull heavy will cost you now 13000 metals and some 2600 stellars for running those factories making the patches. And I am not counting the cost of getting those metals.. :-)
Actually those 5 factories (on massproduction) will cost you another 125 modules yet to compensate.. Modules which can't be used to get more stellars in merchandising

Not sure where your metals/stellars costs come from?

If you're talking compensation issues, then its for discussion with Mica - but I think it unlikely people will get resources (modules, or whatever) to allow them to build the production base to cover the new maintenance costs....that kinda defeats the purpose of the change. they may get some patches, to help in the time needed to change their production around, etc.

The new system, despite the protests from some sources does the following :

Traders, with light and xlight are unaffected - ship building/maintenance is the same as it ever was.

Warmongers - those with big fleets already in place, have an advantage in their fleet being harder to reproduce, but now have a very huge maintenance cost, that will need some serious invetsment just to stay the same. So a balanced effect, given how the objective was to reduce fleet build-up

New Warmongers - with little or no ships, but hoping to match the huge fleets. First, if anyone thinks this is possible without taking a seriously large amount of time to achieve is living in a different reality (and one Id like to join!). Secondly, the new situation is to your advantage - as Ive stated elsewhere. All that production the established warmongers are now diverting away from ship building to meet existing patch requirements is not a problem to you - you can use that production to build extra ships. True, not as many as before - but thats true for everyone - but you are building MORE than the established warmongers.

Mark

Sorry, my mistake, Mica must have said it in a mail. Not on the forum. The post you found was written since I wondered why nothing was heard about the infrastructure update.

As for names I use the same one everywhere. Makes life easier.

I am sorry to hear that you will leave this forum. If I am the one that pisses you off please say so and I can leave the game instead. Without your continued effort to make it better it won't be the same playing anyway.

Lets get that pocket-calculator :-)
100 Heavy hull = 2.5patches per week = 250 production = 250 metals.
250 metal * 52 = 13000 metals.
250 production = 5 factories on mass production = 50 stellars on employee costs = 50 * 52 = 2600 stellars.

The maintenance costs change were fair, balanced and necessary. Any discomfort was more than compensated by the integrity reset, giving anything up to a year to accomodate that change. I proposed increasing maintenance costs in order to limit battlefleet size myself, before your changes were implemented. I have absolutely no problem with the maintenance cost change.

However, if they will limit fleet sizes, why the building costs change?

17 months against 17 months before the change, 17 months vs. five years now. The proportion gets worse.

For instance: If an affiliation has built 250 ships under phoenix, before the change. With the shipbuilding cost increase, and the penalty of increased maintenance, they might only manage another 50 in the next 17 months. Total fleet: 300 instead of 500.

Whereas a newly building aff which might reasonably have expected to build 60 ships under the old rules, might now manage...18? 18 instead of 60

500:60 = 8.333:1
300:18 = 16.666:1

There are some though that think that even attempting to challenge the dominant affs shouldn't be allowed, because nobody could ever match them. I wouldn't have minded trying, before the odds were stacked even further against.

That's what it feels like. Those factions which use military dominance in order to exert their control over battle-conquered territory shouldn't be given an extra advantage to help them police it, surely?

No - its not anything to do with you, induvidually.

I would not like it if you left the game as thats not what this is about.

I would like it if ppl would take the time to read before posting.

You see this is what i'm talking about......lets look at what i put

getting -> future tence (not got)
to the extend -> to the extent but not actually totally there yet ?

So you changed thinking about how long i spend here getting annoyed by things compared to how long i actually do anything any more to i've already left ??? .... you have to understand that its the whole 'putting words in my mouth' thing i don't like.

But what you are saying is not entirely true.

An player with 250 warships will need to invest some 1250 factories just to keep those ships intact. An burdan which costs them 12.500 stellars per week, and cost them around 62500 metals.

This will reduce the number of warships production, while you as an starter don't get that burden.

The stellar costs is not really that important (thats just an base on halfway decent planet), but the mineral costs alone is enourmess...

Look at your inventory and try to find those 62.500mu metals per week!!

ok.

Because of the thread already banged on about repeatedly for god knows how sodding long.

Fleet maintenance.

Disposable fleets.

End of story.

I was suckered into this.

End of story

But I havent seen any new arguements being offered up - just repeats of old ones. And since these have already been covered elsewhere (regardless of being to your satisfaction or not), simply repeating the same old stuff will just annoy everyone - it shows you didnt listen to their answer, so why should they answer the same question again? it just comes across as ranting, rather than trying to offer constructive criticism.

If you have something new to say on the subject, Id be interested in hearing it - otherwise I can read the past forum posts :-)

You will appreciate this rant

And I repeated myself by making the same point I made once before on the mailing list. Have you read either? Would you like to comment? Or just repeat how it is unfair once more. I was actually trying to be fair to you Tony by letting you restate your concern without all the incidental, distracting flak. Yes, *I* invited you to post your concern again and *I* answered it without further criticism. Or by "suckered" are you implying that I intentionally set you up?

Anyway, with respect to the answer *I* gave you Tony, do you still have the same concern?

That's oddly appropriate as I think I'm to blame for that result. Everything was going well when I walked into the room just to see the final score (out of idle curiosity) at about 89 minutes.

After the first French goal I asked my wife (the football fan in our house) if I should leave again. She hadn't finished swearing at me before the second one went in.

Oops. Sorry. I'll try not to look at the television for the next few weeks...

;^) (That's entirely true though)

No need to use capitals, I can read just fine without them.

If you re-read what Steve wrote, you were asked to mention arguements the GMs had not seen - not to repeat stuff from elsewhere on this forum.
Even so, you got some pretty reasonable replies.

Regarding your ratios, if you extend the exercise to 3 years and then to 5 (a not unreasonable time in an open ended game that been running for decades), you will see that the ratio slowly shifts to favouring the new/smaller affiliation. At 3 years, its about the same as the old rules and beyond that its now to your advantage.

Regarding difference in fleet sizes, personally Id prefer to be "100 ships behind you on a quarter the number", than 300 because all those extra ships, which I cant stop can go off and destroy one of my bases with ease, whilst I couldnt do a thing about it. The new rules effectively makes bases better protected.

Mark

I never have been able to understand why some people think they are making an investment when they pay for a turn. What you are paying for is the turn itself.
I have been running Jax for about 9 years but if it was flattened tomorrow I would not look on the last 9 years worth of turn fees as a lost investment, I have already enjoyed what I paid for.

Geoff

PS I WOULD be very unhappy about it for other reasons

Not more ******* football, can't we even get away from it here?

Geoff

I will only say one thing:

Sweden 5 - 0 Bulgaria

I was playering starwars galaxies at the time (for my sins) and before i heard england had scored from the other room in the house (where they were watching football), it was announced in local by lots of ppl shouting 'goooooooooaaaaaaaaaal'..... you can not get away from it - how ever hard you try.... they only advantage is to see french ppl sobing (at least until the match was 'over').

If it's non-fatal the Hive won't participate...

Who said you were invited ;)