This is already being discussed in another thread...

They already have been reviewed and things will change when the infrastructure update is added. IMO any short term changes are only worth considering if the infrastructure update is still some way off.

I don't believe that this change would encourage affiliations to have other affiliations claim a system on their behalf. I'm not sure how claiming a system on behalf of another affiliation will improve enjoyment in the game either. Could you explain why it would?

The best way to look after a system for another affiliation would be to show that you can do it and that the system owner is better off (financially, politically, strategically, hassle etc) with you claiming the system. The GCE seem to be doing a good job of this at the moment.

Though I can appreciate that these are issues for you, I really can't see how they would make people leave the game.

2) This should be addressed when we have the infrastructure update. SO you will probably have to wait a year.

3) This would only force bigger afs to place starbases in the system they want to claim, so I don't think this will help.

Brian, DTR

The problem is more that we need to be able to keep the players that do join. From my own experiance at least half, probably more like 80%, of the people assigned to the RIP don't reply to any 'welcome' or 'introduction' message, and judging by the number of starter ships that never move I assume they don't play at all after signing up.

Out of the ones that do reply about half get annoyed at the hassels of trying to get the various order editors to work. One player just last weekend has been trying all week to just be able to login to the online editor and has finially decided to give in.

And the ones that remain find that after their first couple of turns they don't feel they can do anything to effect the game dispite offers of help from myself. Which i'm sure goes hand in hand with the small-affiliations-complaints in the other threads.

IMO more people can only improve the game, and losing experianced players without getting new people is going to cause harm in the long run.

Well, as voiced last night,there is some disagreement on the issue. I fundamentally disagree that restricting the game to fewer, larger, affs is any part of the solution.

I do attempt to recruit roleplayer/wargamer friends and acquaintances into the game, with extremely limited sucess as yet: The 'free trial' element is good, but they are discouraged by the fact that even paying the not insignificant sum of £6 pw - £25 per month, as I limit myself to; the same as my SKY TV subscription - they would still be fairly small and insignificant compared with the big players in the game, either alone or part of one of them.

I did have a paragraph in here proposing a nominal 10p charge for ship updates, which could be offset against 'enhanced political positions with free updates, but realized this would give an even bigger boost to 'megavessel' affs. :-(

£1-update 'Minibases' with limited production and income potential would be a step forward, in my opinion. An enticement to stretch just a little bit beyond being a 'free' player, without jumping in wholeheartedly. And we more committed players would find them useful - I have a couple of sites whee I'd consider this level of investment, but would in no way consider them worth £2.25.

I agree that current research rules suck. Affs in existance at conversion were effectively given the means to progress to to the limits within comparitively few years, wheras anyone following on is blocked by the disadvantage of having a 5000 MU 'first step' of not having a principle. We are faced with the delight of doing level one techs at -3, or blueprints at -7, while the big affs make copies at +2, and trade copies of the techs they started with. Starting from where we are now makes it very hard to counter this (I'd have done it easier at low-level, and getting progressively harder) but degradation of blueprints/techs and even principles 'in use' might address this - how about a 'nominal' mass loss of 1 MU per week for each week they are tooled, which could be countered by voluntarily untooling them and 'reseaching' back up to full points, at which point they become 'tooled' again?

My ideas on system control were proposed in the 'A Proposed Frontier effect' thread.

Plot threads may be getting tired - I'd love to find an alien artifact or even just an illuvitorian starbase, but having missed out the first time around the only way might be the Phoenix II option - I see no chance of the big blocs passing the opportunity to have another go, and muscling us small fry out of the way.

New systems have been thoroughly researched from anywhere which could be publicly accessable, and most big affs seem to be three or four jumps in by now. Again, this facet of the game is closed to those who wern't a major force at conversion. How about making stellar cartography easier, but with a lower chance of success - with no impact on subsequent efforts?

i.e.: Stellar cartography I from a certain system, might cost 500 MU's of research, and have a 5%(?) chance of success in finding a new system, either one completely unknown, or already known in-game, with a bias towards the former. Whether successfull or not, it could be retried at no penalty to the low chance of success, and the fact that SC has already been sucessful from a given system would not guarantee sucess, or the discovery of that same system by attempts by different parties.

This might make it worthwhile for somebody who wasn't already in controll of multiple restricted-access systems to actually conduct such research to find one for themselves, and be confident that if any news of success leaked out, it wouldn't automatically be taken from them within a few months.

Trade sucks. It needs amending to make it impossible to make vast profits by taking moderate to high-value goods to a single planetary market. The higher the value, the lower the volume demand, should be the rule. I'm not sure this can wait until the infrastructure, which I believe is still the best part of a year away?

TonyH

An idea for quick and easy temporary partial-fix: Change Current demand in MU's to the same value in Stellars.

i.e. Currently: demand for 1600 MU's can be completely met with 1600 MU's of food, or 1600 Mu's of Hand-crafted furniture.

Proposed: Demand for 1600 stellars can be completely met with 114 MU's of hand-crafted furniture at $14/MU, or 16000 MU's of food at $0.1/MU.

- Should help 'fragment' trade, until infrastructure comes in, with more finesse.

TonyH

Or at the very least it should devalue that partiular good (and related ones?) for a significant length of time.

This has its own flaws in that most planets with majors starbases/markets can also generate a large amount of things like food or local goods, if there is no stellar advantage then why ship in goods at all?

But I agree the current system is broken, and other than storing demand for every good I'm not sure I can see a simple solution.

- I dont propose that the multiplier for shipping across periphery boundries be reduced, so there would still be a big incentive to cart stuff from where it would only fetch $2/MU to somewhere the same goods would fetch $14/MU.

Its just that this markup would not be able to be taken advantage of by a single player, shipping a large consignment from one single source to one single destination. At very least they might have to split it between destinations that they personally own, and they might have to put stuff on public market sale, at at price below they could theoretically sell it themselves, because their own captive markets would be saturated, and its the only way to get the goods out into regions where they have no access - a profitable job for courier captains perhaps.

Granted there might be no incentive to ship food if there is sufficient demand for it on-planet. But, are there many planets which generate 16,000 MU's weekly, to completely fill the demand?

If it adversely effects stellar income, there might be a case for increasing demand by a small factor when converting from MU's to stellars. x1.2, say. But, I think losses could be largely offset by public-market sales.

TonyH

- And I find myself in agreement with Goth. I suspects sombody has conducted a mass doping of the British water supply, and wait for further comment from overseas players.

TonyH

The issue you have is that some old timers have been in the game for 10+ years now (i think). I'm one of them - though i do let new players bring their idea's to the table as thats what keeps things fresh and the aff alive and vibrant...

A player is effectively an employess of the affiliation and works for the aff. Hence the way the game and affs work. If we give players all the assets they build or contribute two and they then decide to move to a new aff you loose the assets. If the asset in question has had considerable help from others in the aff then they won't be best pleased and unlikely to work with others - so undermining the benefit of working with others.

However why can't new players spend more time in the nursery system(s) and be able to buy new ships so they could leave with 4-6 ships, keep them below 50 hulls so you get a range of fast couriers or explorers or gunboats and then it might create a bit more reason to stay and play.

Also give the players who start to play the game some resources that we all want, a few mu's of rare ore's. Or a ship load of mk4-5 modules that they can flog to us and make some money on.

Oh and lastly - do not allow any heavy hull warship to be able to jump for more than the basic number of tu's - huge warfleets that get from one side of the periphery to the other in no time at all take out any semblance of tactics/logistics. It might even start to lessen certain affs reach in the game, which should give smaller affs a chance in their own backyard.

Here is the main problem with the game. Nothing against this view point but this is why the game can't keep new players....

Most of us are "employees" in real life and want a fair chance based on skill to be "emperors", "Warlords", "CEOs", "Pathfinders" in the game.

Affiliations today can only keep players through the abuse of power...."You leave and you lose everything" concept.

If there was a different path (even if it was the starter base that would take a long time to build up) then affiliations would have to work a LITTLE BIT to make their membership happy.

It's called competition.

I can hear it all now....join another affiliation......

Unfortunately, ALL the affiliations with assets are run by people who have been in the game for 10 years or so and all have the same attitude.

Right now, the game is in the grips of a few players with a MONOPOLY on power and assets. It takes a few months to really understand this (I still struggle with it) and that usually leads to quiting the game.

Goth
(All the other tweaks on the game system are really geared towards the old time players NOT keeping the new players who mostly want to control their own destiny).

why not i pay ( which makes kjc money to keep running phoenix) for several starbases so why should i be poenalised for shipping goods to my own planets and selling to my planets population.

again why just cause you dont have the bases and resources to do it why punish the rest of the player base.

,

again why this is all comming in the changes so why are we asking mica and david to change some thing now thast being changes later in the year any way. oh let me guess it dont suit a few players so it must change

actualy if you are neural to most people, most people will trade with you. but thats a trust thing

and what has mica always said since the change pheonix is a STELLER based game so if you cut peoples STELLER incomes how many more will just say enough is enough and quit( hence making it more expenciuve for the suviving players in starbase and political costs as kjc has to make money)

thats just your opinion and what i have said here is mine as a 1 man aff i survive and prosper by talking to people and making deals ( i have also been known to help small affs out with loans and ships cause i can!! to help increase other peoples enjoyment of the game and it reaps its own rewards with trade later when they are established them selves)

what the main problem with this game is is player retention and the more people change or demand changes the more the older players are saying enough is enough and droping out.

the solution to player retention (in my opinion)

1 if it ant broke dont fix it ( so leave the steller values of goods alone) the econamy changes will sort out this problem later in the year


2 players need to talk to there pds and pds need to talk to there players and sort out what if they wish to leave a aff they can take( most pds will let players take some stuff if they have built it them selves i did when i went from my last aff)


3 get a training system or systems in place thats safe (as yank was in bse) so new players all start as ind in safe systems so pds have to chase them and entice them to play in there aff not just seed them to a aff this will make pds look after new players better


but hay these are just my thoughts on the game


chris aubrey

hlq -pd

If you have sufficient bases to soak up all the goods you import from your own systems, there will be no change to you. If you are shipping from a single base with massive production, to a single base with massive demand, that is hardly because you are spending a lot on the game - It's becuse you have a base, or possibly just an outpost, in a system which gives a very high multiple when transported to a single planet in the Darkfold system. Which is due to a very advantageous setup, rather than a large expenditure within the game, isn't it? This is a situation we'd all like to be in, but if everybody had such a cash-cow it would cause massive in-game inflation .

In fact, you would not be penalized that greatly - [Plucking figures out of the air, for illustration only]:Currently, If importing 1000 MU's/weeks from the inner empire, you might sell them in Darkfold at $14,000 stellars to your own base. As proposed, you'd sell 100 MU's for $1400, and have to pass on 900 MU's - either to other starbases you yourself own, exchanging with parners with goods to take the other way, or even place them on your public market at... $10/MU?. So income from this commodity might drop from $14,000 to $10,400 - hardly critical. And, a courier captain might be able to make the 'lost' stellars by carting 400 MU loads from darkfold to the capellan system (where you have no access), getting $1,600 for the effort - a worthwhile sum for a couple of weeks risk and effort, as opposed to the derisory sums on offer now of $100-200. And that courier captain might stay in the game longer than a fortnight, because they can make their own way under their own efforts, instead of the beneficence of 'the great and the good'.

At the moment any 'high value' uniques are either sold on open-market set so close to their maximum worth that, again, only a few hundred stellars can be made - or are so rare you spend 90% of your trading effort chasing worthwhile deals which are instantly snapped up. This wouldn't be the case in my proposal because EVERYONE who has a high-value unique (including myself) would have to spread them about more - and the market for low value-stuff would expand too.

"If it aint broke dont fix it" is the standard response from players who are doing very well out of the current setup and dont give a **** about the game as a whole. I say it is broke - introducing free $10K handouts to political players is to cover the poor state of trading within the game, and I'd rather forgo this and use my own trading fleet, thanks very much. Unfortunately there are very few worthwhile trading opportunities about, even with all the private deals I can make.

And... I'd rather play the game than have charity - i turned down a free caravel just the other week, because I'd rather build and run my own 20-hullers, otherwise there's no point in being independent.

TonyH

While I agree that trading is broken I'm not convinced your suggested fix will solve it, or even make it better.

If you have mutliplers for distance then it's always better to be able to ship from your own outposts. Reducing the mass for high value goods makes it hardly worth while searching for them, so kjc lose income and we end up paying more for starbases. Without some kind of limiting factor however you have the situation we have now. The only sensible limiting factor is one that would cause a single good to be saturated at a planet and so other source for goods as well as other markets for the saturated good would have to be found.

This is a very sad situation to be in, but it is not universal.

If I left my affiliation tomorrow if I wanted to I could take a number of ships, tech, troops, assets, etc, as well as well wishes from my PD. I might even take a base or two depending on the politics of the situation. I have no player owned assets, I have no means of forcing these things out of my affiliation. There is zero pressure being applied to keep me in my affiliation.

I'm not suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the game, or that there is no room for improvement, but it is wrong to tar all long term players with the same brush. Your situation sounds bad, but that is down to how your affiliation is run, or a personality incompatability*, or some other issue along those lines.


* which is a nice diplomatic phrase that could cover all manner of ills

I disagree. I cant see why it wouldn't work as outlined in my preceeding post.

i.e. No different to now. Not worse.

Many current restricted sources of unique items could be adequately soaked up by a single planetary destination - like my 100 MU's of 'rock crabs', which I'd haul to my inner empire base myself. If I had one. And, are you seriously saying you'd pass up the chance to exploit a high-value, hagh volume source just because you couldn't keep the entire distribution net, and hence 100% of the income, to yourself? Not in control of the 'cricket bat' unique resource are you?

Agreed - with no limiting factor, individual players in control of a high-volume, high-value commodity now dump the entire lot on a planetary population which they solely control. The simple limiting factor I propose is a rough and-ready solution to be in-place BEFORE the infrastucture upgrade, which remains an unspecified long time in the future. Trade needs addressing with the same urgency as problems with the warfare aspect of the game have been.

A level of finesse which is outlined within the infrastructure upgrade. But, can we wait that long? Players currently raking in buck bucks from monopoly trade can, yes. But if they're not prepared to make the game attractive for everyone else, perhaps they should be left to it. This is a reduced player base, so kjc lose income and we end up paying more for starbases....

TonyH

Why wouldn't I?

I can get the same potential income (you've already stated that mass will be modified by value so income, excluding distance modifiers, remains constant) from cheaper goods, assuming I can get them from just as far away, and by doing so I keep 100% of the money.

I don't need high value and high volume if i have at least one of the two, which is why I don't think this idea will help.

Of course under the current system as I don't have high value and high volume I'd be happy to purchase your excess high value goods. But then under the current system you can probably sell them all at your own starbase. All in all I think this idea just moves the problem around rather than making it better.

Nothing personal but aren't you the PD of the IMP?

The "voting" system is kind of silly.... Doesn't the PD get 8 votes? Is there enough other votes in the whole affiliation to even get a tie score? Saying that you should get enough new players to be able to get a diplomatic solution is a real catch 22 isn't it? Imagine the pitch to a new player: Join us so we can get enough votes to over rule the PD.... Then of course, there is the fact that the PD can decide not to let enough people into the affiliation to break his voting block.

I am not suggesting that the affiliation system should be changed. I am just saying that if you really want new players to stick around, getting them their own "starter bases" or other player owned assets to build up is the best way.

I imagine that if the affiliations really tried, they could even get some of these smaller affiliations to join up with them as they matured (keeping their player owned assets and bringing them with them to the affiliation). This way, if the new players really disagreed with an uncooperative PD they could leave the affiliation with more than just their hats in their hands. There would be a loss to the affiliation not just the player (member leaving).

Having 100% control over so much of the game's resources has corrupted many of the PDs perceptions of the non-PD players.

Goth

But nobody would be able to fulfill the immense demand for low-value stuff by local production - The demand for stuff with a $0.1 basic value would go up by 10X - Utopia alone could absorb 300K MU's of just food. A more typical planet with say 1600 MU's current demand, could take 16K MU's per week. What it couldn't take is 1600 MU's of Ambrosia, or Falconian wool. And that seems FAR more realistic to me.

Trade benefits: because high-value stuff gets split down, and a market for low-value high volume stuff might arise. And frankly, even if it means that players controlling a high-value high-volume commodity cant just cart the stuff to their own private market, so much the better, because THAT's whats destroying the trade aspect of the game, and that is an aspect which needs some attention at long last.

Merchandising complexes would need adjusting to have stellar, rather than MU, limits. How about equal to the base merchandising income amount for the planet, per complex. eg: A demand of $176 and a drop of 50 might mean that each merchandizing complex could sell $176 of stuff, per week.

TonyH

youve given away my goals now Goth

seriously though,

the IMP, people have votes, we share as many bps and assets as possible, and we are friendly and try and help each other.

i would have thought the other affs are the same? surely, ive spoken to enemies who seem ok, so surely they are ok with their own

Oh the other hand trade doesn't benefit because whereas before I actually had to buy goods to cover market sales, now my high-value low-yeild resource produces enough to cover all my starbases, and all the ones in my affiliation as well... Looks like I won't be needed to buy at all, and so trade is dead.

Which is the other side of the same arguement you just made. As I was saying it doesn't solve the problem just moves it slightly.

More of a misunderstanding of what I am trying to get across from a NEW player point of view (even though I think you would be tempted to disagree with me on just about anything).

I am not saying that the affiliations should be forced to change. I am just saying that there should be a decent alternative to joining an affiliation. A small player owned starter base was an example.

Even in your pro-affiliation statements, you clearly like your player owned assets better than the affiliation owned ones.... that is all I am trying to tap into.

As it stands now, a true independent is a hunted animal. A new affiliation costs 1 million stellars to start (most newbies would give up before they came close to saving this much).

I think the old time affiliation PDs desparately fight against this alternative because they know they will have to be creative in order to attract players to their affiliations..... NOT JUST BE THE LESSER OF THE MULTIPLE EVILS.

Goth

If you're currently buying sufficient trade goods to fulfill your own demand now, and wouldn't need to buy-in afterwards, presumably these goods might go on open-market sale? That would improve trade, because there's ***-all worthwhile to buy that I can find, unless I'm willing to make six jumps to earn less than a thousand stellars.

And, I fail to see how increasing the capacity of a planet to take 300 MU's of food at $0.1/MU to 3,000 MU's at $0.1/MU can FAIL to increase trade. It's not all about high-value stuff.

I think I see the real objection. Individuals with a single big-market planet and a source of high-value, high yeild uniques a long way away would loose an in-house major income stream, even though they could get most of it back by selling the excess on open-market.

This is the POINT - trade needs increasing by making it less of a monopoly operation. And if it makes it harder to support a large fleet with the proceeds, so much the better. As I say - I have no objection to somebody running 20 starbases supporting a 20,000 heavy-hull fleet, because that's what it should take. And presumably he could still sell all his uniques to his own markets anyway, so wouldn't be effected.

TonyH

Granted. And I am not proposing that this 'history' be undone, although the way some people react you'd think so.

While I would agree it is probably far easier to do in Phoenix what was done in BSE, I would also state that there have been a few necessary adjustments done which make it much harder to accomplish in the last eighteen months of Phoenix what was done in the first eighteen. BUT, That cant be undone either, and wouldn't propose so.

GIVEN all that; I do feel people overreact when a proposal is made which would put them at a minor disadvantage, especially compared with what has been introduced within recent years has done to others, and argue against it as if they had personally sacrificed their first-born to acheive their awesome acheivements.

Because some of us know that is, at least partially, B****x.

TonyH

My memory is poor... what was THE trade enhancement, again?

At the risk of bickering - I think it quite proper that players who do not wish to engage in the trade and income-generation part of the game, should have less income than those that do. Not none at all. Not a small fraction. Maybe 70-80%. But definitely LESS. Some players dont seem to want to accept this. They are wrong - Or am I wrong, and Phoenix is just a wargame?

TonyH

Possibly true - people do tend to get attached to what they see as the fruits of their labours

But equally there are a fair few people frequenting this forum who try to apply logical thought and their experience in the game to try to make some objective (and hopefully constructive) crisitcism of points raised. Constructive debate is nothing to be afraid of - it helps to look at a suggestion from all angles, as there may be an inherent flaw that the originator never noticed...If a suggestion is the right one for Phoenix, David & Mica will use it even if there are a few strident naysayers.

The mini-base idea as talked through at the pubmeet (global factors only, no mass production but for a reduced cost) would be a good addition to the game in my opinion - that's one suggestion that has merit in particular. It encourages exploitation of the small-pop worlds that aren't considered worth chucking a base on - and also bridges the gap between the "free trial" and the £4.25 a week that you need for a political plus one base.

Some existing bases may be downgraded because of this introduction - but I would think that the take up on outposts converted to mini-bases would offset that - and come the infrastructure updates even exceed it.

Dan

Granted, I am guilty of blurring together both responses on this forum, and hence countering the wrong group [CIA], and also responses on IRC etc., some of which have been along the lines of "If this comes in I'm jacking it all in".

But, the trade adjustment from MU to Stellar limits is in my opinion an answer to some serious difficulties within the game at the moment, and more importantly is at first appraisal, fairly quickly implementable.

TonyH

Couple this with the fact that there is no "starter base" alternative path for a new player and you can see that the Old Time Affiliation "Owners" have little or no incentive to do right by the new players.

Right now, the benefit to the PD that has a monopoly on the affiliation assets is that the new player picks up the real world cost of running the affiliation starbases and when the player quits or leaves the affiliation all the ships/assets he created stay with the affiliation. Not a bad deal for the fat cats.

Giving a "starter base" opportunity would create competition for the affiliations BUT it would also create a HUGE TRADING OPPORTUNITY for the big guys.

Let's say for example (using my previous Krell example) that there was a relatively safe "home world". A new player or a disgruntled former affiliation player would start with the basic base (100 factories,mines,merch, whatever).. just enough to get started..... Guess what they would need lots of??????

Everything!! Mods, basic tech, weapons, employees, you name it. This could go a long way to helping the trade system out since there will be demand by the "have nots".

Just my thoughts (again)..... I'll stop beating the dead horse now...

Goth

Assuming that most players pretty much have full control over what they produce and what they do with that production, then running an established base for an affilation would be an excellent way to help build-up a base of your own.

So running bases for an affilation - and indeed ships (to shunt cargo from one t'other) - can be pretty handy to help establish yourself if you really want to go it alone.

Been there, done that. Still am actually - my current stellar-generator is a rental place.

I AM an aff dictatorship, and proud of it.

TonyH

My point is new player retention.

I am still new enough to remember my biggest gripes with the game and it had nothing to do with tweaking this game mechanic or that one. It had everything to do with feeling like an "employee" instead of an "owner".

The problem was that if I didn't like that feeling, there was no other viable path (every affiliation says they give the members a say but who controls the ships and bases?).

Think of all those "dead" starbases out there rotting as outposts.... How many are player controlled vs affiliation controlled??????? I bet the VAST MAJORITY are affiliation owned. Why? Simple, Human nature is to take care of things they OWN.

Think about this: All the big affiliation PDs have been playing as leaders of the Affiliations for YEARS... this is because they are effectively the "owners"... members bounce around and out of the game because they are "employees".

I'm just saying that there should be an alternative to being "an employee" without "stealing" from affiliation assets (taking stuff and transplanting it).

Goth

Or just maybe its the other way around and they are a PD because they have been playing for years.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by this...

My point really is that I don't think many PDs have quit the game (except in a real life emergency or problem)....

I know lots of NON-PDs who have quit... Many of whom quit because they didn't like the way affiliations were run.

Many felt they were locked into battles that have raged in a boring fashion for many years with old players who had old grudges and wouldn't consider a new point of view.

Goth

Remember Pirates would be under the same movement restriction.Which means they would have to stay in a system hiding somewhere after an attack.If a fleet of APTF ships were in system they would have a higher chance of capturing the Pirate.Of course if no ships were in system to chase down the pirates they would get away.So it wouldn't increase the number of pirate attacks.

What the 60 TU movement per day would do if affs were serious about defence against pirates and other affs is break up the mega sized fleets into smaller units so as to cover more territory.
This would lessen the large scale battles we see now wherby two large fleets square off against one another then it all goes quiet for weeks on end while they go back to base for repairs.
Not saying mega fleets are wrong,but they and all other shipping move from A-B to quickly IMO.

I'm not so sure that slowing the movement system would be good. The normal 100TU jump drive is very slow in my opinion and even the 50 is not so great when you factor in the movement between orbits and quads. Furthermore, in the case of big fleets....there is also the RETURN TRIP....

TUs burn up real quick and if you are fighting in the inner orbital rings there is always the chances of getting hemmed in by small picket ships. There have been far less mega-fleet actions in the last few months because tactics have been developed to combat those types of moves.

Slowing movement will make the game less appealing to new players (read as boring).

Goth

60tus would mean those with the HJD could still jump, whilst those without cant move systems at all - so it becomes infinitely better (1 divided by 0), compared to now where its twice as good.

One idea could be to have Jump tus based on ship size - so small ships can jump for less and the bigger the ship gets the more tus it takes to jump. So a 200HH is a slow-moving tank compared to a 10HH racing bike. It would also give an advantage back to small ships, which would answer one of the other forum threads? The QJD and HJD would give bonuses to the basic tu jump cost and not be for fixed tus like now - say a QJD drops 10% off standard jump tu (whatever that will be for that ship size), whilst the better HJD reduces it by 25%.


Mark

This is not entirely true.

If you join the DTR, GTT, IMP and maybe a few of the larger aff's then yes the PDs have been around for 10+ years and have essentially built up the affiliation/nation.

If you join the smaller aff's then there is a much greater chance of advancement.

Not to mention it being a lot of fun building up an aff.

Recently (yesterday?) a fairly new player became PD of the AFT.

I know of one large aff who has a fairly new player controlling most the important assets in the affiliation.

However, you are in the GTT and I would not be far wrong when I say that malcolm practically built up that aff alone having only intermittant help from the occassional player joining and then leaving. You can't blame him or any long time PD for holding on to the assets they created within the game universe.

I have a tendency to do things myself without asking the FEL membership to do it for me. Its a mistake and I am trying to rectify it and by trying to pass out missions to those who are equally capable or better at doing it. This is probably what causes people to leave because they feel there is a lack of trust from the aff. leaders. That is what I think is wrong with the game ... the lack of trust of new players. It is easier to trust an old well known player than it is to trust a new player because he could be a "dummy" player account set up to spy on the aff he has joined.



Gordon

I agree 100% on this, 80% non replies from new players who also appear to never run their ships is a modest estimate.

The orders, etc, are problem enough without having to wrestle with the Turn Editor(s).

Making the Turn Editors user friendly should be a priority fix.

Geoff

PS I think all officer creation costs are too high, especially naval officers

As can I - in fact, as can me and one of my two VPD's (and very soon, me and both of them....)

Democracy at work in a Tyranny - keep back, could be interesting

Dan

I can't blame him and I don't blame him, I would do the same. Malcolm is hands off and doesn't meddle in the affairs of individual bases...which is great. Frankly, I am not talking about my specific circumstances, I was talking about new players and keeping them interested in the game.

I have what might be considered in the USA as "Golden hancuffs" I had some great bases handed to me and I have invested lots of time and effort to make them bigger and better. Going to a little affiliation after being spoiled by the GTT would be a bitter pill.

If you spoke to me 6 months ago when I was very close to quiting, I would have told you all those things I said previous to this post.

Goth

The above tactic is valid within the context of the game. Since the owning affiliation found a cheap way to belt your platforms, and at the same time defeat your tactical expectations is no basis on which to cry foul, let alone approach the GM on this issue.

Although X/Light hulls are intended to provide additional space for the inclusion of components, and at the same time acquiring large negatives because they are physically larger in volume does not preclude the use of including offensive weapons in this space. It does get balanced by the effect of counter-fire killing such ships very easily.

Unless you can show a clear mathematical argument that demonstrates the stress loads generated by the fire of weapons heavier than point defense systems is not safely distributed across the framework of such ship classes, then you have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion. You will also need to show that these same ships were loaded to the maximum cargo loading as well as this will in turn add stress to the ship frame. Note you will also need to show that missile launchers etcetera are substantially more dangerous to mount and fire from this ship class than ordinary point defense systems.

Consider also that in real life, the energy of a missile is significanly less whilst inflight, and similarly the thrust levels to launch them in terms of total force is substantially less than the energy dissipated against the target at detonation. If this were not true, the they would be nothing more than big bullets where the energy dissipated on impact is always less than the the energy used to 'launch' them.

Also since you have openly admitted to using a loophole to defend against this tactic (based on GM guidance), if anybody should by crying foul, your opponents should.

Personally, I would not have called the defence tactic a loophole, but a valid defense tactic against an unexpected means of attack.

This is returning to an old discussion.

But the Torp launcher ships were changed so that they could not hit anything that was more than 1g faster than themselves.

As it is, Xlights are practically useless in combat UNLESS used against unsupported and unarmoured platforms

But calling it a loophole ...

Not unless you accuse the KAS (GM run) of using the same loophole which is essentially where the idea came from.


Gordon

If people want to use (x)light hulled ships in battle, then they should be allowed to do this. However, platforms are expensive to make, as are heavy hulled ships and whilst a platform hull can have 50MU capacity compared to a heavy hulls 30MU, platforms are seriously disadvantaged as they're static so easy to hit. The ability of a (x)light torp ship blowing up a HH ship was the reason for the introduction of the 1g torpedo limit and ISR field stress. It would therefore make sense to have some such mechanism for platforms.

So yes you can have some small HH ships to use ISR field stress to take out (x)light huleld ships. However, surely it would be better to allow platforms themselves to create an ISR field. This could be done either based on the number of platform hulls or by allowing ISR engines to have an ISR generating field function in a platform. The latter would be better as it would then be a compromise between how many ISR engines you want to install in the platform conpared to other items.

Nik

I disagree.

If we constantly Tweak the combat system every time someone thinks up a new tactic to deal with a problem then we will soon be left with combat which leaves no room for tactics. Straight hack and slash with only the numbers (amount of hulls) of ships determining the outcome of a battle ... I'd find that rather boring.

I think the real problem is not the Xlight hulls being used to carry weapons but rather people not thinking of possible tactics that can be used against them (platforms) and takings steps to defend against it.

So leave some room for innovation and creative thinking ... that is afterall, what is fun about this game.

Add that to things I think is wrong with this game. The constant adding of new rules because someone complains.

Most of these things can be taken care of in-game without GM intervention/interference.

Gordon

I thought the damage was due to manvouring into combat causing lots of stress on the hulls, worked out by the number and rating of the isr engines, rather than fields these generate.

If it's fields then ISR Type-1 drives should do less damage as the description mentions that the fields is tighter along the skin of the hull.

Futhermore if it's manouvering then since when where ISR drives used for that? but thats a totally different arguement.

The ISR drive was an compromise, as the orignal idea (which was way more realistic) was shot down.

Also an Platform is not an defense on its own.. its an delaying factor, no more no less.
If you think that an platfrom will defend your base while doing nothing, thenyou are plain wrong. Platforms can be killed by dedicated ships. Like any position can be killed by an finetumed counter vessel. Finding the counter design is part of the fun..

I just think its weird that a ship with less hulls could remove an XL or light hull ship before combat begins, but a platform is vulnerable. The presence of a few ISR ships solves the 'tactical' problem, but it doesnt feel right in game-mechanic purposes. Its proven in-game that they do generate ISR fields, so this should have an effect on attacking ships too.

Mark

Platforms don't move so why would it have an effect on attacking ships?

Along with a nice way to find new players this would be nice

I know there is a 'list' in the online editor, but my list only ever has one person in it.

Just to be clear - it was not referred to as a loophole.

A platform is a stationary target and its primary vulnerability is that it cannot move and inflict ISR. It does however have many other positive attributes such as armour and space.

Xlight hull 'warships' are possible and have a niche - usually hammering outposts that use negative profile as their only defence - it is also good at hammering unsupported platforms.
Note however that large salvos of torps are subject to enhanced PD. In the case of this battle, the defenders PD's were firing at close to 400% effeciency.

Our aim as game designers is to allow niches and some exploits - they are not mainstream tactics but have their uses.

My opinion on missiles - this thing about missiles is that they are self-propelling. The reaction force is applied to the missile, not the launcher - this is the reason why there are such things as Laws rockets. There is negligible force and heat applied to the launcher and external hulls - certainly no more than handling a few hundred tonne freight pod or the super-heated ion stream of re-entry.

Our attack certainly didnt work as anticipated ;-) There was still a platform in place at the end of the day.

I work with laws and rules every day. I do know that there is a tendency in humans to apply those to everything at the cost of flexibility, innovation and creative thinking. There has to be room for these things in this game ... and not just thru the SA*s. Game winners and unbalancing exploits must be dealt with but not little things which can be countered in-game.

Also, I'd rather the GM's spend time on the more important stuff such as the online editor and the infrastructure upgrade.

Gordon

Hi Fellow warmonger:

I felt much the same way that you do when I first started out (by the way, I have been in the game about a year now). The truth is that the mega-fleet battles are alot more rare than people think. Sure, they do happen and if you only have a few ships in their way....you are toast. The trick is to be the one to pick and choose where, when and how to fight.

I started out with only a few ships but I geared my bases toward building ships (just small cheap normal hullers in the begining). I was able to learn a lot about the combat system through raiding and small fleet actions. The enemies I have (and they have the biggest mega-fleets in the universe) are not about to send hundreds of ships out against a few raiders...even if they do, they risk a lot more than the raiders are worth.

Of course, a lot depends on what affiliation you belong to. I am blessed with an affiliation that provides me with a target rich environment.

Goth
GTT

What better way to trap a wreckless counter attack?

There is always the matter of saving enough TUs to get out as well. I still think that slowing the jumps down will make the game boring (especially for newer players).

Besides, there are lots of ways to make sure the big fleets never make it to the location that they want to go to (assuming that location is not in rings 10 and above). Now that ships cannot be pinned, mega-fleets are much less of an issue.

Goth

Hi,

From my DTR perspective, there is a lot of strategic manouvering going on. The big fleets do what the big fleets did during the two world wars, they move around in reaction to each other, and rarely bring each other to battle. And in the meantime, the lions share of the fighting is done by smaller ships, smaller squadrons.

For example, just yesterday, a squadron of my heavy cruisers intercepted a GTT cruiser. Neither side massively re-inforced.

I get a lot more play value and fun out of my small fleets of second-line warships, than I do out of my squadrons of 100HH Nebulons.

Also, have we seen a mega-fleet encounter since the new rules came in?

I have to agree here. The game seems geared towards smaller fleet movements, especially since the combat rules last changed.

Being able to 'bottleneck' incoming ships is just one, admitadly the simplest, way to concentrate your firepower.

Although I don't like the fact certain affiliations have the potential to jump 200+ ships to pretty much any system they like, the fact is most of the time they can't risk it and it doesn't have as big and impact on the game as I expected. You only have to look at the success of certain pirates in the game to see how easily large ships with 300tus can be avoided.

Of course they could, but would they? As soon as the IMP hear that the whole DTR fleet is locked in combat in Storm I am sure the IMP/GTT fleet will pay a visit in Straddle or Adamski. I think it would be a problem if only one alliance or affiliation could field a huge fleet. But now we have plenty of affiliations with the capacity and I believe they take our each others.

Will this solve anything or will it just be the same in a few years?

Or do you propose that all affiliations start without starbases (no freebies), without ships except for the starting courier (no freebies) and as soon as a player leave the game all his bases and ships will be removed from the game (not like today when you just get all the stuff when you join the 'right' affiliation).

Well, presumably the rules changes are towards an improvement in game playability. If 'Cheap shipbuilding' cant be allowed now, it shouldn't be retained by those that took advantage of it under different rules than now. The advantage of a new game would be all could build up under the same rules.

Why not just the equivalent of Hypso, in the new game? I'd be willing to start with nothing at all, in exchange for a system which was immediately balanced insead of having to make baby steps part-way in order to avoid upsetting the 'Cash cows'. They'd have their game how They liked it, and I could have some room to play mine in... a dozen systems?

This is, after all, how BSE started - seed affs in limited systems, with the now mega-colonies then able to be severely damaged by a single Flagritzi base ship, armed with 200 photon guns. As opposed to now, when anyone who (for purposes of argument) annoyed the Flagritz could be faced by dozens of larger ships, amed with heavy nova cannon MkIII.

A fresh BSE game-start with perfected Phoenix rules, that would be attractive. And, presumably they're NEARLY perfected by now - it's not the new rules, I object to, it's people who have gained from the old ones, totally controlling the game. so, presumably yet another new game wouldn't be necessary for ANOTHER ten years?

After all - you wouldn't put a fresh start in a late-stage game of Warlord, would you? You'd allow those who wanted to, to take over drop-out positions, and accumulate other players for a fresh game start. The trouble with Phoenix is that drop-out positions, like the CNF or GTT cost large amounts of real money to run. Too rich for me.

TonyH

It's not really the jumping thats causing this problem, but the fact ships 'store' a weeks worth of movement.

If that was removed it would avoid the 'can cover 100000 systems' problem without slowing the game down and removing from the tatics you can do. Even just halving the store would make a big difference.

And yes some orders take more than 60tus, it's easy enough to keep a note of 'progress' with any order. It would even give you the option of speeding the game up by offering more tus a day, which might help intresst new players or those with few positions.

But isn't there other ways than changing the rules just beacuse you have a problem? Can't you use cloaking devices. Flag a ship as pirate. Ask pirate Large for help. Buy stealth scouts from the QNG. Anything? I have always believed (and still do) that there is plenty of ways to do things in Phoenix. The game mechanic allow for much flexibility, that is as long as you know the game mechanics which isn't obvious with the slighly outdated rules...

And as for the wiping out part. What does it matter if it takes two weeks instead of one?

We HAVE a reduced player base - I thought that was the problem with phoenix I? - The very large drop-out rate. Because the game offers little to the small player, except being 'Grist to the mill'.

You have been a PD in a multi-player aff (as have I). I cant afford it now - family commitments. I have TRIED to make my own - by announcing that my two warships would take a mercenary contract, and ANY limited response, within the range of that contract, was acceptable. What happened? - An immediate attack on a so-called secure system by an aff who consider themselves (and probably are) immune to all reprisals.

I would like to engage in ship-to-ship combat, without joining somebody elses mega-aff [Pirate large being a VPD, at least]. This is not possible in Phoenix I. Mind if I ask for phoenix II? You stay in this one - but it is not my role to be restricted in the game just to feed your large-grouping goals. This I'm assuming, is an opinion shared by the large degree of drop-outs after the first few weeks. The response shouldn't be 'keep quiet, you might put even more off'. It should be 'What can be done about it?'. Unfortunately; nothing, in Phoenix I. Because it suits the players willing to pay for vast numbers of positions, or simply be part of groups that do. So, phoenix II perhaps?

OK, I'll shut up - If you're lot will stop posting about that TEDIOUS IMP/CNF who-did-what to who stuff. I've already dropped out from Yahoo, and am TRYING hard to stop proposing game mechanism changes on here. I would particularly like to avoid personal abuse, thinly veiled as 'In character' sent to my private email address - you were copied in on those, wern't you?

TonyH

I consider myself to one of those small players you talk about. Inceasing the cost of jumping would severly damage all my operations to the point where I would see no need to continue them.

I just want to say that you do not represent all small players in the game. I am one that hugely benefit by being allowed to jump large distances quickly.

Thats why i proposed removing the store rather than slowing down jumping

Odd in what way?

Getting into firing position on a tiny HH ship would but a lot of stress on the ships hulls, which is what the isr damage is ment to represent. There would be practially no stressing getting into position to assult a static platform.

I agree the overall concept of isr damage is a bit strange but considering the production costs changes and how little hh ships can hold it makes finding a sensible solution hard. Isr damage works, to an extent.

I believe this would be a better solution, it would also create more interesting strategical situations with fleets that move instead of just sitting and waiting.

There is a difference between manouvering into a good fireing position and assuming ships can only shoot straight, space is fairly large and I assume ships have to manouver within a certain distance before firing.

Ships do take manouvering damage, very minor though, but I'd assume that working out the relative deltas to enter orbit requires far less strain than combat.

Shouldn't imo, but probably does. Didn't think of that

The only real arguments I see against it are:

The fact ships are in one location longer which makes piracy easier. But then as the pirates can't store tus either capturing a ship and getting away with it are both made harder too.

And the fact it might make hit and run tatics much much harder. You'd need two days to escape again obvoisuly relatiation is slowed down as well, so it might just have the effect of slowing down combat overall. For example hit and runs being multiple days of combat rather than just the one.

Hit and run tactics against outposts are viable. They can and have been carried out.

Could a simple change be to make the Hyper Engine able to jump 8 systems for 100tus (instead of 4 for 50)? Still keeps the same ability to travel vast distances, but effectively increases the minimum cost (if you only go one system, its still 100tus).

It would also open up the possibility for having a range of jump engines - an engine that can only move 1 system, for 30tus for example.

Mark

Considering the information we get from tech manuals i think the distance of 4 is hard coded, although I could be wrong.

Would lead to some intressting special actions though. The number of times i've wanted to jump 5 systems, if I had a drive that took even 150tus it would be worth it.

I think I missed the start of the thread on this, but how would it work for those orders that take over 60tus to do? Like standard jumping, prospecting, SAs, etc?

Mark

Im not convinced it will have any impact on the ability of the HJD though - just means they can go a theoretical 16 systems instead of 24. It probably only leaves a couple of systems they couldnt get to in a day?

Removing the stock altogether would benefit the HJD even more - they could jump the same day, whilst those using normal drives have to wait until a day later. From a normal JE covering 50% of the distance in a day, it drops to 0% in a day.

To be honest, if Mica thinks the HJD is a problem then why isnt the item changed? Either make it not as good, or easier to build (so everyone can get them and it evens the playing field).

From the comments some of those directly affected are making (IMP bloc and DTR), it doesnt seem to be an issue? Big fleets jumping everywhere in a day isnt happening.

Mark

Very true - another reason not to remove it altogether - there's several now, including the fact that some of us don't have the time to run turns every day, without fail

he did - he made it a lot easier to destroy a HJJ in combat....

Mica and David are the only ones that can see the whole picture - but that's my impression too.

Dan

Oh the other hand rather than being able to jump 12 extra systems the hjd could only jump 4 extra on that one day, so it depends if your looking at pecentages or numbers, don't you love satistics.

You have pending orders so you wouldn't need to reissue orders each day, that would make the game unplayable

Despite me argueing against these points, and after a long discussion with another player, it seems there are a lot of problems with the whole 'partially complete orders' concept. As it stands either you do an action or your don't, with partially complete orders you'd have the concept of being 3 tus into a 4tu sector to sector movement, which is just silly from the whole combat pov.

As it currently stands we can't reduced the tu store as some actions (at least one i can think of) take 300tus.

So just limiting you to a single jump in a day?

What about 50tus jump drives though?

Dunno, as I said - just an idle thought which I thought might contribute to an issue voiced earlier. Detail is probably best discussed between players who run ships.

TonyH

'Halt on TU's' would make Navel interception theoretically possible - in the same way that spotters act and try to hit freighters the following day (or do they? - I only spotted the 'On patrol' flag yesterday). Adding a little more depth do the game, maybe? Just imagine being able to hit part of an enemy fleet as it went towards target, the other elements arriving under their expected strength. Of course assembling an attacking force beforehand would avoid this difficulty - but again this would ADD to realism, and slow-down massed fleet movement.

Freighters become even more vulnerable because it disables dashing from port to port. But, maybe they should be anyway - or should at least employ 'counter ambush' measures a bit more refined than using a games mechanism flaw. It also means that if traders spotted those rare bargains on a public market, ships already in the same system have the advantage of grabbing it - Again, how it should be.

Of course people havn't come around to a single conclusion, and this is the forum for sounding out ideas, right? Even if one hasn't been put forward yet, I think a lot of people are of the opinion that some things in the game need changing. Not everybody though, of couse.

TonyH

I don't see anything wrong with the system the way it is. I can't make Hyperdrives or quantum jump drives and I don't really care if the enemy has them. The Hyperdrive gets blown off at the slightest sign of combat and they are expensive in materials and space on the ship to have. The QJE is only good for scout type ships anyway.

When is the last time somebody saw one of the massed fleet moves everyone is so concerned about???? I believe it was over 6 months ago. To change something as critical as the movement system for no major increase in the "fun factor" I believe is ill-advised (at best).

Taking away the "storage" of TUs, slowing movement, making it more cumbersome to move things around only equates to making the game boring. If you think about what most people want these days (instant gratification) slowing movement is a "fix" in the wrong direction. I know that pheonix is not meant to be a video game or "instant gratification" but turning it into a grind is a big mistake.

Goth
(Gimme the speed!)

The issue is not simply QJE, or Hyperdrives, which I cant make either.

The issue is the big fleets being able to range over half the entire common systems in the game in a single day's movement, and move back to safety a day later. The entire common systems, for fleets with Hyperdrives (I know one affiliation which claims to have a stockpile of over 800 of the things, more than enough to replace combat losses for the next ten years) The skirmishing that now goes on is because big fleet controllers are unwilling to risk their, now literally, unreplicatable assets on a big fleet engagements against each other.

Under some movement restrictions, the 10,000+ hull fleets wouldn't be able to dart forward, inflict massive damage, and retire, secure in the knowledge that if anyone is hitting them, they can be back the next day. Hyperdrive and quantum drive ships would still retain their advantage of covering the ground faster.

It might bring the fleet combat game back from the game of 'Risk' it has become, (which is good for instant gratification, I understand). Make the existing game space seem 'bigger'.

TonyH

No, but when people give you three for doing simple trading runs or even one completely for gratas, I know that they can be in that restricted supply, to some people.

Possibly I'm mis-remembering. It could have been 800+ zionite (which no longer even exists for anyone else to discover). That would be 400 hyperdrives, right?

Please re-examine my proposal, in light of comments on other channels: 'Wait for TU's after jump'. For everyone. Not just QJE and hyperdrives. Not remove Hyperdrives from the game, or give me any more than the limited number I still have. I know they can jump from one end of publicly available space in one day, because I've done it.

How is this 'Whinging'? Please explain?

TonyH

I have been fighting and killing enemy ships in running battles for the last 8 months (even longer but in the begining I only had 2-3 ships). I have at least 1-3 battles per week sometimes more. They are almost always very small engagements. The battles involve every enemy of the IMP block.

These battle range from boarding enemy frieghters/warships to "suicide" attacks on known locations. Most often, my attacking ships are 20 normal hulls or less. I have jumped into bigger battles that others started on day 2 or 3 to inflict terrible damage and then leave but have not really been involved in big stand up battles.

My point is that you don't need a big fleet to participate in combat, you do need a big brain and a little luck. You never attack where the enemy expects you to (or the WAY they expect you to). Big fleet manuvers that you are talking about almost never actually materialize into combat.

The problem is that no one wants to admit they got bested....it is far easier on the ego to blame the game system. If changes were made to make the map seem artificially bigger and then one side or another loses a big battle, they will be blaming the changes.

The problem isn't the game system it is the tactics of the players.

Goth

I specifically did not use anything more than what I knew you had (because I knew you would cry foul).

In our last "battle" I sent one 20 hull normal hull scout against your 20 AND 50 hull normal hull ships and I killed your 20 huller and got no damage vs my 20 huller... How much more can I handicap myself for you?

For such and experienced and respected old timer, you really should have the character to admit that you have been bested fair and square and end the silliness.

Why blame the game system for mistakes that no game mechanism could have saved you from?

I played you like a puppet and did every single thing I said I would do (including taking one of your ships).

End the madness or I will.

Goth

Sorry Dan, but I think recent game actions are very pertinent to both this thread, and several subsidiary threads, relating to things such as secure systems and mega-fleets, and Goth's prior post was such a distorted view that I could not just 'let it Lie'. I also have been letting myself get riled by insults in private emails which although claiming to be 'in character' cant possibly be, since they include statements like 'if we kill off his political he'll at least have to change his whiney voice on the Yahoo forum'. Sorry.

Goth has conducted a brilliant but infamous, pre-emptive, 'pearl-harbour' type strike on an unprepared enemy. I am enjoying my turns relating to this, more that any in MONTHS.

The point I am making is that I am told that any counter-attack is liable to, and been threatened by, total annihilation by the GTT. Which is why the system claimants, who recently knocked down a 2000 hull enemy platform themselves in a matter of days, refuse to even consider any response to counter the GTT fleet, but are considering several military responses to me, as 'the problem'.

I am simply using these events as prime examples of how megafleets allow total dominance of every aspect of the game, and should be limited, dispite the protestations of those who benefit from them, since they are an unreplicatable asset, which would cost 3+x more to build now, than they did eighteen months ago - a change which allows an adequate replacement level for those that have them, but cripple any development that those that dont.

Of course I may be mistaken on what I am being told, and will only beleive one recent statemeny if confirmed by the GM himself: "Yes I control {several hundred} large warships, All of which were built since phoenix replaced BSE, and 80% of those since the shipbuilding changes were introduced. I do not beleive it. 80% in the eighteen months before they were introduced, and 20% in the eighteen months afterwards I would beleive. Can it be confirmed by the GM?

As for restricted movement: I just wish to point out that the people who could theoretically travel from one end of the Phoenix universe to the other, a hundred times in a game year, could still do so afterwards. Hardly justifies the "Why should we be crippled" statements, does it?

TonyH

'Our' decision? I wasn't aware that your PD had any part in it, back-stabbing an ally who has spent more time building up Falconian homeworld defences in the last three months, than his own, because he thought they, as system claimants, were defending him.

But... it does seem strange to declare war on a group which already controls one of your own starbases? Lack of coordination there, surely?

This is off-topic, sorry - but the relevance is that I dont beleive the FCN leaders reasoning, above. He's too scared of being wiped by the GTT, but his first, last and only response to any in-game counter to his status, however peaceful, against weaker groups is the 'total annihilation' response.

Which impacts of the hidden systems, and shipbuilding, arguments, I think.

TonyH

I'm guilty of bringing some of this into my last post....sorry.

I haven't agreed with much of what Tony has said but I do agree that it is next to impossible to build up a fleet to "catch up" with any of the big boys. I do have a large base dedicated to outputing ships (1600 factories).... they are obviously not all making heavy hulls but most of them are dedicated to getting ships built and in a whole years time (assuming I can't buy HH somewhere) I can only build about 20-25 100HH battleships (including all the internal components)... Then there is the patches to consider....

Anyway, I have always thought that the ships should be quicker to build but more expensive to maintain. This way a smaller affiliation could build up quicker (to have a fighting chance) and then "demobilize" after a conflict (scrapping/selling the extra ships) much like the real world.

This would also discourage the unrealistic stockpiling of vast fleets even in peace times.

Goth

A long example,sorry

A ship with a standard JD and ISR 4 and an orbit time of 10 TUs travelling from Dogleg to Mobile Bay.
Orders:leave orbit
Jump Yank
Move to orbit of Mobile Bay.

Day One:Ship leaves orbit(10Tus used ,50 carried over)

Day Two:(50 Tus from day 1 +60 Tus for the day=110)Ship jumps to Blagard(100 Tus used,10 carried over)

Day Three:(10 Tus from day 2+60 Tus for the day=70)Ship doesn't jump(70 Tus carried over).

Day 4:(70 Tus from day 3+60 for the day=130)Ship jumps to Skord(100 Tus used,30 carried over)

Day 5:(30 Tus from day 4+60 for the day=90)Ship doesn't jump(90Tus carried over)

Day 6:(90 Tus from day 5+60 for the day=150)Ship jumps to Yank,then moves to G 12(148 Tus used,12 carried over)

Day 7:(12 Tus from day 6+60 for the day=72Tus)Ship moves to G13 and orbits Mobile Bay(14 Tus used)

As you can see it takes the ship the same amount of time to go from Dogleg to Mobile Bay,but instead of doing it in one or two days playing time the game program divides the journey into daily movement.

The player just issues the orders and the program does the rest.
No more using the wait for TUs order then rushing right across the known galaxy in one day.
The player could have the option of getting a printout everyday or when the ship has completed the orders.Of course any trouble along the way from battles and/or running into an asteroid will also generate a printout and allow the player to delete the remaining orders and issue new ones if so wished.
The player could even keep track using the online editor.
IMO this won't slow the game down enough so that players will find it boring,then again that's just me and I respect others opinions!

Being the commerce raider that I am, I can tell you that if movement was broken down this way....I would have a field day intercepting and killing enemy freighters. I would love to see this breakdown happen but would warn that pirates will gain a huge advantage and so would commerce raiders.

Right now, the only thing that keeps the body count down to a degree is the freighters jumping from one safe base to another... If they "stopped" between jumps this way, they would ultimately end in predictable (unprotected) areas. I assure you that they would be EXTREMELY hard to protect.

Ultimately, I believe it would also kill trade even worse than it is now because of the increased risk of sending lone freighters out....

All that said, I'd love to see it done.

Goth

Bear in mind that commerce raiders and Pirates will be using the same rules.So do they hang around a trade route long enough to attack ships?or do they keep on the move to avoid anti pirate patrols?
They will be just as vulnerable as anyone else!

If a ship is doing a long haul run as the rules stand now they still have to wait at either end of the journey to build up TUs to move in system.
Take my example on moving from Dogleg to Mobile Bay,but use the current movement system.

The orders are as follows:
Leave orbit
Wait for Tus(300)
Jump Yank
Wait for Tus(60)
Move to orbit of Mobile Bay.

At either end of the route the ship has to wait for Tus to continue.I know it's only until the next game day.But there is a chance that any potential attackers could have their turns processed before your ship and hit it before you move.Granted you could order the ship to wait for TUs in the middle of the run instead of at either end,but it would still be vulnerable to attack if your ship is processed after the pirates.

Breaking the movement down into blocks as I've suggested won't make ships anymore vulnerable to pirates as they are now!

I think it is a good idea. As long as I can chose to not get any updates until they have completed their orders...

means you will be in the same situation as those people who put their ship in mid space and forget about them.. They will get boarded.

You already get an way now to keep ships moving, its uisng an Wait On Tus order with 1 point in the last line.

I think its a bad idea, and would make running ships more of a chore as well as discouraging more casual players.

Even though I think I would personally benefit from a change like this, I'd rather keep things as they are. I am used to the current system and I don't see any real problem with it.... It is also relatively easy to work with... In short, "it ain't broke"

Goth

This would supercharge the low-tu cost JE (HJD and QJD) - they could jump in one day, hit you and retreat day 2 and you wouldnt have even moved! It means the hit-and-run attack for HJD is far more successful, but also means they can be back in their starting position before the normal JE ships have even moved.

It would also make stargates and wormholes (if you dont have the right tech!) far more risky, as your ships have to wait to get through. This would benefit the FLZ - we could see the consortium fleet waiting at a stargate to come hit us and we get a days advanced warning to ensure we have a nice welcome party. But I still dont think its fair.

The orders wouldnt be as simple as you suggest either - as a merchant would want to try to ensure they leave their ship at days end at a safe location; with the 300tu stock you can plan it (though a lot still dont, so pirates can have their fun<g>). With the 60tu per day it gets very complicated.

My other concerns are more just emotional - I want instant gratification I do a lot of SAs and if I write my orders on Monday, I want my results Tuesday. Worse, I write them on Thursday night to get something interesting back for Friday to look at over the weekend and instead dont get them until Monday :-(

Mark

Well as the FCN are "too scared" of an "uberfleet" you also don't hear us complaining about wanting drastic rule changes do you?

Obviously if the FCN is so terrified we've decided that we'll deal with it IC, rather than wanting the game rewritten to our own totally biased expectations of _how things should be_

Pete

Perhaps there was a hugely motivated plan with wide ranging retribution going to be dealt on the GTT on the KRTs behalf... when the KRT PD, diplomatic and fact based as ever, managed to talk us out of it. <g>

But no I'm sure IC issues are best dealt with by rule changes and personal attacks on players OOC.

Pete

There are a number of small innocuous affiliations that have done OK, yes. But being 'harmless' is of no attraction to somebody like me, who served just short of four years in the AFT. There are plenty of groupings in the game who believe, apparently correctly, that 'might is right' and accept no inhibitions on their actions, however nice and civilized you want to be with them - actions over the last two years regarding a major former GM asset given to player control, demonstrate that.

Being a pure trader is boring, and I believe increasingly unfeasible, and definitely unattractive to somebody who has done nothing much else in the game. Trade is collapsing, with no moves at all to correct it except on the indeterminately far horizon, wheras warfare is STILL getting it's quick-fixes, after about three years of constant development. And nothing will be allowed to undermine the key advantages that haveing access to territories restricted to others brings - restrictions which stem from military power, one way or another.

I am slightly suprised to learn, from postings in connection to the 'movement resructions/TU accumulation' thread that there is an 'inner circle' of players who apparently get to review, and veto, mooted game development before it is even discussed publicly. Maybe they earn this influnce from being senior players in the big affs, but I certainly wouldn't consider them as representing me in any way, and perhaps goes to explain why the game is so biased in favour of those factions who already have virtually everything anyway.

Diplomacy and relationship-building? Having just been betrayed by some of my closest gaming partners of the last year or so, merely for daring to offer to assist an amicable freind who has supported me? "Dont lecture about what you know knothing about" - as I am CONSTANTLY being told.

Yes, I suppose I could join the DTR... IF they were still recruiting. But even they pick and choose their battles carefully to avoid seriously risking their significant unreplicatable assets. And helping to run and support part of somebody elses battlefleet has no real attraction, either.

Sorry to sound so negative, but I am sick of constructively proposing changes that get totally blown away with the "we like it like it is/If it aint broke/I have enough to do" type of comment, on here, and the "Why dont you just P*** off then" comment elsewhere.

TonyH

Is this not the exact attitude that led you to declare war on the WMBs? Your only solid IC reason was that you could, so you did. You never tried diplomatic contact, and went straight for war. Yet you claim that is exactly what is destroying the game for you...

Another case of "do as I say, not as I do".

Goth

Do you REALLY think that was a serious attempt at a war? For ****s sake Clay, as I said in the announcement, it lacked any territory on which to progress the engagement, unless you were willing to pop round to Storm.

It was a joke. I never considered any realistic prospect of us actually getting to grips, amusing though it might have been - because nobody would allow it in their territory, would they? The IMP's wouldn't, the CNF wouldn't, the AFT wouldn't. OK, I have know found out the FCN would, but didn't know that at the time, and I doubt that the GTT actually bothered with asking, anyway. They have no concern for small fry.

But Clay - the whole thing was worked out, backwards, from the punchline. 'Clause 4' etc... Your comments were a direct quote though. And somebody thought it funny enough to scrape it and post it to IGN, not me. These days I just forward battle reports.

And Goth, dont bother telling me you dont understand/dont consider it funny. I know. Here's a puzzle at your level: N*o*h*t* P*w*r*a*e*.

And Dan. DO IT. For the good of everybody. I'm wasting too much time on here.

TonyH

I'm afraid your post is shows neither an awareness of any recent proposals, or what has gone before, paul.

I DONT WANT TO CATCH UP. I want to play in a game where it is possible to HAVE only a few warships. Engage in the combat side of the game, and not be threatened with total annihilation for daring to even marginally impact on the megafleets for doing so.

As a matter of fact, Warship-building was made significantly harder, about 4x, only just over eighteen months ago. This was done without impacting on the numbers already built in the first eighteen months of Phoenix, making them four times more valuable.

You may care to read up on this, and the associated postings on this forum.

http://www.spacious.com/forums/index.php?s...hl=shipbuilding

http://ccgi.kjcgames.com/1024/dataStore/ne...l.php?newsID=72

And you may be better-informed. Some new players are proposing changes which are just increases on those which were supposed to fix problems in the game recognized, and implemented, two years ago. Which obviously havn't worked, and have simply entrenched the existing megablocks in their personal endless fueds, too scared to seriously engage each other.

Who the ***** has ever proposed this? I do object to being totally ******* on by a player using spin-off production from a big aff, and obsolete ships to squash any opposition. Dont know if the guy is paying significantly more than me to play the game or not, but the fact is that the current setup is only playable for the big affs, unless you are willing to play a boring, harmless, underdeveloped subset of the game, and if you dont want to pay megabucks, or be a minor assistant to those that do, the game is getting increasingly unattractive.

And, against this background, we are actually getting PD's posting on how the game must force more players into their affs....

If anybody is paying £50 pw, or more, to play this game, they deserve to be a significant force in it.

And, who the ***** has ever proposed this?

I dont know - probably leave the game. Most people do when they come to realize that it is just uber-fleet dominated starfleet battles, and they are subsidising a core group of long-termers, who will give no ground to anybody.

Have you any contribution to make? I would love to hear what YOU think, even if it's just 'I have been playing for five years and still look forward to every email'.

TonyH

I happen to agree with this statement. The game offers many different options to players who think about what they want to accomplish and lay out a sensible plan for getting where they want to go.

You can be a lone wolf BUT then you have to pick your battles VERY carefully (like in the real world). If you choose to threaten, harrass, attack, badger and generally annoy powers that can destroy you then your life expectancy is and should be VERY SHORT. A lone wolf has to be MORE diplomatic that "uber-affiliates", this is merely common sense.

You can play a part in a large affiliation easily if you choose to (and get the goodies) but guess what? There is a price to be paid in your freedoms.

There are also many "in-between" positions to play that have combinations of the above pros and cons.

Anyone who takes the time to really plan what they want can have a good shot at achieving it (assuming it is within the real scope of the game). Simply looking at what the "other guy" has or can do and crying foul does no one (especially the new player) any good at all. As a matter of fact, it taints the game for the newbie who sees a lot of negativity in many posts (even if they are only coming from one player).

Goth

Sadly, the messages you quote were from internal correspondence that we did not realize you were CC'd on. You can see I was talking to PA not to you, not that it matters much.

Your suggestions and complaints are hardly too complicated for us mundanes to understand, we know exactly what you are trying to get (something for nothing).

If you were offered the GTT and turned it down.... then why are you complaining about their advantages vs the positions you now run? Do you simply resent the fact that you wish you took the position? Sounds like a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. Furthermore, if you had taken the GTT over long ago, I wonder if it would even exist today.

As far as you making claims about the player population based on another one of your "informed sources"....if it is as accurate as most of your other statements, the game player population is probably expanding quickly.

It seems like most of your posts are trying to give the other newer players the impression that there is no fun to be found in this game... That is just not true. I can't understand why you linger spending real life money if you think the game is not what you are looking for. Are you just trying to see if you can get others to quit?

Anyone can see by the number of markets/ships/activity that the game has a solid player base, please don't try and taint that.

Goth

Sorry? I am being accused of wanting something for nothing?

I am less bothered about the attitude of the GTT PD, who has at least spent more than a decade spending real money on the game, than I am YOU. And I accuse you of not understanding my proposals, because YET again I am accused of wanting "Something for nothing".

You take over a multi-million MU, GM-seeded, starbase and use it's production, and associated spares from the battlefleet, spare resources which will now take ME four times as much effort to replicate, and after barely six months in the game have enough power to completely obliterate somebody who has spend nearly four years game-time accumulating EVERYTHING I'VE GOT? And YOU talk to ME about, wanting stuff for free? What have you EVER accomplished with stuff that you wern't simply given, for free?

What I want are game mechanism changes, which effect everybody equally, and dont just serve to preserve the benefits of those who simply got in first... like the shipbuilding changes DID.

OK. I could spend the next forteen years playing the 'Buildup' game... doing what?
I've done trade, tried getting into the exploring virgin territory side, and was blocked, and dont fancy uber-fleet battles. Yes there is fun in the game - for the mega-fleet operators and power gamers, like yourself, who must dominate at all costs. What if I do manage to win against your second-rate flotilla? The 20000-heavy-hull 'Death Star' fleet turns up and obliterates me, and one or two affs with similar-sounding names, for the 'glory' of it. Just like has been threatened already.

And during the entire forteen years I am still subject to being wiped out at the whim of a Neophyte powergamer, unlike the privilidged position of the current 'big affs' who could build up in totally secure systems (Like Capellan) and STILL engage in the warfare aspect of the game - Even the AFT, in those days.

By the way Goth, I turned down the GTT because I didn't want to spend six hours a night running a multi-player aff, writing letters in longhand and spending pounds a week on phonecalls. Which is what I ended up doing for the AFT anyway, and is why there IS an AFT now. Unlike the SSL who were about the most popular aff in the game in it's first six months. Preach about accomplishment and 'free stuff' when you accomplished something without your own 'free stuff' from your PD, OK?

As I say, I have received this from more than one source 'in the know', i.e. not you. There are lots of ships in the game, yes. With very few players operating them - like the couple of dozen which turned up the other day at a starbase I was running. Summoned at one days notice.

TonyH

Well the only way I can think of on how you do it is to......but I won't give the game away!

Not sure how it can be abused Goth???
If a player creates MER positions those positions can be attacked by anyone as are PIR.
If an aff hires the MER postions at X amount of stellars per mission or week the controlling player won't pile in more assets to get the job done as they would then be making a loss on the deal.

There would be no point for say an IMP player to create MER positions to attack DTR or Confed positions as they'd use IMP assets that other affs not involved in the conflict wouldn't attack.
But if that same IMP player wanted a bit of extra backup,but didn't have the required assets they could call on a MER force.

Having said all that if the MER idea was adopted FET would not hire out to affs involved in the human civil war!!

That is news to me also. especially considering I game tested BSE before it went public using the GTT prototype.

But then can you back up your statement with any hard fact?

MALCOLM STEEDMAN

I became GTT back in 93 and acted as GTT Guardian for a couple of years.

While I don't often see eye to eye with Malcolm IC, I do know that he has brought something to the GTT that you cannot have done had you been PD and that is stability. I also remember the GTT being the first aff in the game to research the incredible battlecruiser, negotiating the Indiaman design etc. etc.. Hat off to Malcolm for sticking around and making the GTT into one of the more powerful aff's in the game. The GTT has never had one of the more attractive profiles and has traditionally had a hard time attracting players. I fail to see how this has anything to do with Malcolm and I am speaking as someone who has had Malcolm as a PD. Can you say the same?

It seems to me that you go out of your way to insult the players of the game.

It is almost as if you are intentionally creating a negative atmosphere with the intent of hurting the game by discouraging new players and bugging the old players.

And while Goth may have been given his items for "free" as you say then so have most the players in the game ... including yourself I think. Where did all your equipment come from? I am talking about the stuff the FCN held for you after you quit. Was it built at AFT bases or did you purchase all it using money earned from the AFT bases?`

Get serious mate.

We all play this game for one reason or another. I have an ambition in this game and that is the goal I am working toward and it doesnt include starting from scratch. But who are you to say that what I am doing is not as hard as what you are doing? How the F**k can you even know that and how can you even know what Goth's, the FCN's or even the DTR's ambitions are. The real difficulty in this game is not the game but the interaction between players and that is where you, in my opinion, fail miserably.

Game on and mellow out.

Gordon

Thanks for resurrecting the 'lets slag off Tony Habergham' thread with a couple of points whiich cannot go unresponded to.

1. I was offered an AFF PD ship well prior to BSE start, which I am 90% certain was the GTT, it being a trader aff, not the AFT either. This must have been prior to Malcom Steadman taking it on.

As for his conntributions to the game - In my personal experience they have been to the benefit of mAlcome Steadman and whoever he currently has with him in the GTT, and NOBODY, at all, else.

2. The Only AFT base I controlled after my eight-year hiatus was AFT Amythyst. This was run at a net loss of several thousand stellars a week, the GTT having destroyed the trade value of the planet by dumping several hundred thousand MU's of food on it, under BSE rules I assume, immediately prior to having their stabase magically teleported to the Yank system - this can be confirmed by the IMP PD who shared the planet with IMP Cetza. It took a year to recover to trade yalue levels APPROACHING $1, during which time NOTHING could be sold to the planetary population. The planet had merchandising income from it's 24 merchandising complexes of course, a number which I had got up to around 100 under my control, competing with the 300-odd already on the planet.

The first priority for the starbase had been to research an artificial life-form to resore the planetary biosphere; 'moles' which involved researching two new blueprints from scratch, which required building up from the base 14 research complexes, to 98. The SA to implement the solution, several months later, showed the whole thing to have been totally pointless, the ecosystem having been stablized by vines.

The starbase was the major production centre for both free traders, and Quantum jump drives. I made these on order for the affiliation, as requested by my PD, he either handling the fee, or me doing so, pocketing 5%-10% of the proceeds - and having on occasion to buy-in hulls and raw materials.

I did buy three such vessels for myself - by 'Buying from aff' at full market value. Most of the money was obtained by generating money by open-market trading, between starbases I did not control - this being far easier early in phoenix. I also researched several BP's, from scratch, with a -7 penalty for having no underlying tech, and bought several when they came on open market, including one which I bought from you I beleive - for the full, offered $200,000. I also bought several ships from the EEM, and other players, and even started building a few at a personally-owned outpost.

When I dropped out, after basicly being forced to, I left my stuff with a trusted FCN player. This player grudgingly replaced PART of the assets I'd left, giving negligable help to do so, gradually as techs and blueprints had been copied, and my scientist finished with, and point-blank refused to give the rest, including stuff such as my original starter broadsword - 100 hulls were offered instead, but these never materialized after six months. In the end the player concerned just washed his hands and allowed his aff military commander to wipe me out. Poor replayment for providing stuff such as a stellar cartography tech, and a 300K MU base with THOUSANDS of my paid-for modules, but I shalnt make that mistake again.

Yes, I do give a negative impression of the game - it has, since phoeonix, degenerated into a mass-warfare game with nothing to offer anyone who doesn't enjoy massed fleet battles, because there is negligable development of any other aspect of the game, and the game is dominated by the players of that side of the game, because that's all it offers. I intend to leave you to it, because I'm not paying to support a hobby which only provides enjoyment to immediate gratification powergames like goth and the FCN warlord.

TonyH

At some parts i agree with you as it seems that the infrastructural upgrade seems to take ages.. Also, i am afriad that trading is getting less and less atractive every month. I do recall your first impression when you looked over the markets.. TRADE IS DEAD.
Compared to the level it was when I joined or even one year ago, its really looks like so..

If the competitive nature of the economy of Inversion is anything like the effects which can be caused by the new rules then I do hope that mica allows more planets...

Oh, btw who did declare war on the WMB just for fun??? I don't know about you, but an DOW is an serious thing.

Yup, as it states in the KRT profile:

...looking as much to stealth, connivance, ridicule of others and downright sneakiness to survive...

After all, ensconced in his restricted access system there's no way I can get to him; despite GIVING him a free personally-owned, ship, when AFT, Clay resolutely pretends he doesn't know who I am, and rebuffs all appeals to deal privately.

Fighting is forbidden in Storm... well, unless it suits the FCN, of course. Where else was there?

War... serious thing? Dont make me laugh. Defending another affiliation is a SERIOUS business, requiring the passing of an aff issue by BOTH parties, to establish a formal alliance. Attacking anyone you like, whevever you like, (= war, imho) is a spur of the moment thing. Not one of the four major, and one vassel, affiliations which have attacked me since the navel officer rules came in have bothered declaring war. Why bother?

Hi Sjaak - I was just referring to you, earlier!

TonyH

Dont know about that, I have never stolen any ship from anyone, and the ship it'self (a barge, as I remember) was never AFT owned, and was paid for and acquired with the full cooperation of it's original owner.

Yes, Please! I'd rather Goth took it, than somebody I volunarily aided, who then does nothing but slag me off on public forum.

TonyH