Starport: Galactic Empires

So I think Duece was suggesting this only as part of his ideas for a new IG Homeworlds galaxy, but I thought it might be good enough to work on all servers.

How do you feel about it?

It takes the satisfaction away from killing a high exp player, it will keep the 2011 Champs legit this year, no more of the last minute kills to get a friend a easy cup.

Personally I'd like to drop a deuce on deuce's idea. It will not help anything whatsoever other then the champs.

How does this patch make Starport a better game to play?

I think the death penalty was too harsh.. and it did cause people to quit. A new player could spend weeks building up exp only to lose it in seconds to some vets with nukes.

I think the best solution is to create a scale. Make it so you lose a low percentage until you have say 1,000,000 exp. This will protect newbs. Make it slightly higher from 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 because now you have players that slightly know what they are doing. Than make it higher from 5,000,000 to 10,000,000. Than make is slightly higher from 10,000,000+ however cap it at like 5,000,000.

inevamis wrote:I think the death penalty was too harsh.. and it did cause people to quit. A new player could spend weeks building up exp only to lose it in seconds to some vets with nukes.

I think the best solution is to create a scale. Make it so you lose a low percentage until you have say 1,000,000 exp. This will protect newbs. Make it slightly higher from 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 because now you have players that slightly know what they are doing. Than make it higher from 5,000,000 to 10,000,000. Than make is slightly higher from 10,000,000+ however cap it at like 5,000,000.

this.

i like it the way he has it now.

I only had IGH in mind, but I think it works for permas and rebangs too.

I gave my defense of it in this thread http://starportgame.com/sgeforum/viewto ... =2&t=20489

The only problem is that on the total exp page, there's no exp sink so everything will just inflate. But if you accept that as a historical rank and the monthly page is the current rank, then it all works out. And in that context it's not a bad thing if someone who doesn't play anymore maintains a high spot, it basically amounts to a final legacy of their historical mark on that server.

No more selling death either

it will certainly improve IGH. high ranking people will actually invade now.

So we ruin the whole game for a extended rebang played only by some PAX players? Thanks a lot, duecebag. Hope you get a cup from IGH, newbie.

you need to clam down. on perms exp doesnt really mean much anyway and it will make the champs more skill relative. and it will help make IGH less pax-like.

Let's leave it to IGH and Champs then, I don't play them so I don't care even if they don't have any exp at all.

What the hell is wrong with the current xp system? Why change it? Not that it really matters too much. But I vote No, sorry. I just don't see the point. And how it'll improve igh is beyond me. Playing Port Puss, hoard xp, be sneaky with xp and attempt to never be caught by another player has always been part of the game for some people.

I think that for every 1,000,000 exp you should lose 100,000 exp

BardockSGE wrote:What the hell is wrong with the current xp system? Why change it? Not that it really matters too much. But I vote No, sorry. I just don't see the point. And how it'll improve igh is beyond me. Playing Port Puss, hoard xp, be sneaky with xp and attempt to never be caught by another player has always been part of the game for some people.

What's wrong is the rankings page were dominated by builders and inactive people, and invaders/fighters were limited. Since most players invade and fight, it made them not respect the rankings.

It improves igh, because anyone who plays smart completely stops invading or fighting after a certain point and just gets friends contracted to do their dirty work for them. Now there can be more fights and more invasions by high ranked people, and they can actually fight their own battles for themselves. In the old system, if you have 10m exp, you can never gain exp fighting people with 1m, now if you're good at fighting you can actually continue to gain exp from combat at any point in the game.

If it's really true that the only reason people fight now is to piss off high ranked people that says more about the state of the game. Fighting is an integral part of any war between active corps, if anything this shows that wars need to be encouraged to happen more.

we just need to get rid of you and continue playing the game the way we like, no you one single player. Now piss off!

Well this is my view on the topic. Have a gander and discuss

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20480

If this is done on IGH fine, one server...no big deal. It's not ok for the rest of the servers....for all the reasons stated above. Part of the fun was going to someones home server and hunting a high exp player then gangbanging them. Bardock is correct with what he says....nothing is more fun then doing this to piss off the port whores and shake up a server.

Kill a high exp player then sell off the exp for tokens and continue to raise hell. I'm sure someone remembers the real "Pod Squad" we had on Classics.....10 guys with pods and we killed a ton of players. That is fun, sitting in a port exp whoring is not.


Like I said before how does this change make Starport in general a better game? One more thing I hope that Jamie/Royal.Kitten had nothing to do with this being that she lost something like 250million exp on Hercules last week. I remember the days when our dev would rollback the game for guys like kwijibo cause he snapped his fingers.

BM had the run of rebangs using all the bugs of the game to their advantage, When Patch Six Six Six did the same thing during a rebang our dev came to Classics, stole exp from people then patched the game so the duel bug didn't work anymore. Only because of people that exploited bugs had it happen to them.

25% xp loss for dying was too harsh, as fighter/invaders plummet down the rankings which become dominated by builders and inactives as deuce said. HOwever, the 100k cap is too low, infact there shouldnt be a cap at all, otherwise someone with 100mill xp is untouchable and will NEVER drop down teh rankings even if you kill them 10 times. Just make xp loss purely a % and reduce it even further down to 10% xp loss per death, so a sort of middleground between old and new system.

Also so that invaders can make up the xp they lose from dying, there should be more xp when you cap a colony. BUT when you cap a colony the owner should LOSE some xp perhaps? This would negate possible exploits where lame people could swap colonies back and forth for xp.

Also there should be some kind of inactivty penatly or something, so if you dont play for bit your colonies will start to yield less xp, or maybe if you arent on for a week or more youll actually start losing xp gradually..

But at 10% loss per death, invaders will still get penalized and the problem is still there (though improved). A good invader (however that's defined) should gain exp the more they invade, otherwise invaders won't respect exp. A good fighter with exp should be able to fight contractors that show up from other servers without being guaranteed to lose exp, because that just encourages them to never fight (or stop respecting exp).

The problem of not being able to catch up to people now is real, but in practice it's there anyway. Luna got to 800 million exp, and theoretically she might have died a lot and been caught, but in practice there was no chance of that happening. I think you're probably right that there need to be more ways to lose exp now, but I'm not sure about the inactivity penalty (isn't that always really unpopular?).

Luna got to 800 million because Classics was a dead server, back when more people played this game exp never got that high because colonies went back and forth between corps. Sitting in a port and collecting exp is not skill. Also the fact that the server was set at 10k population plus the refinery patch made it a joke to maintain colonies.

Again the problem here is not exp, it's the fact we don't have enough people playing this game to balance the empires out. More people means more invasions/PK's.


Are more people going to start playing Starport because there is a 100k exp cap? Nope

I understand what duece is trying to do and that is try and get the active people more exp to be at the top of the leaderboards. However, only losing 100k exp means that the people who are already at the top wont be losing much exp and will therefore stay at the top. I dont care about dying now as i know i wont lose much exp. This takes away the consequence of dying and makes it boring!

Perhaps if you lose 100k exp per 1 million exp you have, that would still add risks but not as many for newer players

But even on active servers the problem is the same. In a corp, whoever fights the least, invades the least, or is least active, will have the most exp. My point about Luna was that only a non-fighter can make it that far. And the server has to die... that's true as well. But its not like she was the last to gain a super-high score.. actually Thorin and I were giving her kills to help her gain it faster and because we were going to just lose it all invading. It would've been harder for her to get that far in the new system.

This won't do anything except make the rankings page more accurately reflect who has been most successful on that server. Instead of before it being a combination of being good at building and at not taking risk.

The only reason you've offered for why the old system is better was that it was fun to make people lose exp even though exp didn't matter.

i agree that it should be a small PERCENT lost until 1mil exp. for the good of newbies. game-wide.

except for... IGH certainly. but champs? what exactly is the argument for that? 0.o i dont even think people get enough exp to lose more than 100k exp in one kill. but if that was the case, IT'S CHAMPS. if you're not good enough to keep yourself from dying on the last day, then you deserve to lose the normal amount of exp. champs is rebang-length... the activity isn't going to be stunted for fear of dying, like with IGH. also, this patch had nothing to do with exp GAINED from kills, correct? so if someone were to give their death on champs, and had... 1mil exp... then they would only lose 100k, and give many more kills (and ultimately exp) to whoever they want.

GRAWRG. wrote:also, this patch had nothing to do with exp GAINED from kills, correct? so if someone were to give their death on champs, and had... 1mil exp... then they would only lose 100k, and give many more kills (and ultimately exp) to whoever they want.

I think both are capped at 100k. I wouldn't make sense otherwise.

One thing I was thinking, is that maybe a cap at 500k-1m for killing/dying to other players, and 100k for dying to colonies/suicide. That way combat matters more, but invading is still a viable way to gain exp. But that could be confusing or harder to implement.

force players within a certain xp/follower threshold to sleep on their cols and no longer allow them to sleep in ports

my simplistic solution.

Sell the 100k death cap for tokens and go back tot he old ways. you know u want to.

SiN wrote:force players within a certain xp/follower threshold to sleep on their cols and no longer allow them to sleep in ports

my simplistic solution.

Now thats an interesting idea, although unrealistic that a + rep captain couldnt stay in a port. Id say let them stay in ports, BUT make it so you could find out they are staying there! perhaps using the hail button when at port would list offline sleepers, or drinking at the bar could yield the rumour. Then you cuold booby trap the port to get them xD If they wanted to avoid this possibility theyd have to log out in a colony (so risk of invasion). Ports in UN space would charge them tax so they couldnt take that easy option.

Better yet, why not bring back 10m xp cap with the heavy curve after, what was it? 6-7 mil?

For people that "Don't care about EXP" you guys sure have a lot to talk about.

and Marimba, get off the forums and go back to your life (SGE)

duece wrote:I only had IGH in mind, but I think it works for permas and rebangs too.

I gave my defense of it in this thread http://starportgame.com/sgeforum/viewto ... =2&t=20489

The only problem is that on the total exp page, there's no exp sink so everything will just inflate. But if you accept that as a historical rank and the monthly page is the current rank, then it all works out. And in that context it's not a bad thing if someone who doesn't play anymore maintains a high spot, it basically amounts to a final legacy of their historical mark on that server.

The monthly rank cannot give you a good indication of who is doing well by itself because if you have a lot of exp and you die you almost always get knocked down to 0 in monthly exp.

Montly rank/exp is pretty much only good for people who have cols and don't die or someone who kills someone that had high exp.