Here it is... again.
Homeworlds. Each corp should have one, and the homeworld should have bonuses in military %, resource production, and morale. (They could even be DD's)
Why, you ask?
Homeworlds will eliminate the need for pollution, consumption, etc, and perhaps be the cure for stagnation, as well as further balance the game.
How?
Because every hop from your Homeworld there will be a morale decrease of .3
This is realistic, because as we know from American history, the further a colony is from the capital of an empire, the more out of touch the emperor, and the more unrest there will be in those colonies.
It has it's drawbacks, sure. It sucks to not be able to expand like 15 hops away from the center of your colonies, to create "outposts". However, the benefits are undeniable.
-This could prevent stagnation (domination of a sever by just a few corps) by ensuring diversity
-Add to realism
-Increase the need for tactics and strategy (Would make offensives more difficult)
-Prevent the need for rapid pollution or heavy-penalty consumption(decreasing it so a colony gets to 50% perhaps in a few months rather than a few weeks)
-Would further balance the game (Every corp gets at least 1 Homeworld, which would have bonuses in dependability and make startup for new players easier)
There are corresponding features which would make this idea more workable that I will put in the next post, including a hybrid of Madace's "Role" theories.
[Idea] Same old proposal
Moderators: Moleman, Kwijibo, Luna
-
Manganator
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Massachusettes
- Contact:
This needs to be tried. Not only does it help to solve some of the issues mention, but it would also make it harder for people to get more cash than they know what to do with. With even 40 cols, its very easy to max out your cash. With a hundred its pretty much impossible to spend cash fast enough.
Why is this good? We'll have less cash on any given server and won't need recessions.
I think some of the numbers listed may need to be tinkered with, but it a sound idea.
Why is this good? We'll have less cash on any given server and won't need recessions.
I think some of the numbers listed may need to be tinkered with, but it a sound idea.
-
Manganator
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Massachusettes
- Contact:
I actually got this idea from Rome Total War, which has a morale reduction based on the distance from your capital. It balances the game pretty well.
There are a few options as for what happens when you lose your homeworld.
For the corp that loses it, another one should be automatically assigned (Probably the oldest of the planets in the same system?)
As for how to deal with the bugs of an invading corp gaining a "homeworld" when they can only have 1... it should either
-immediately die
or
-turn into a normal world
That's the whole point. Allowing 1 corp to have "several clusters" (The whole map) Creates terrible stagnation.
Traditionally, Toonces has tried to limit this huge corp size by punishing players for having more colonies, by adding the burden of more work. However, I feel that more realistic, and less labor-intensive methods can be used.
Of course, it'd be better if you had "Raiding abilities", which allow you to, rather than invading a colony to keep it, you can invade it and "exterminate the colony", gaining 1,000 credits for each killed colonist (5,000 colonists killed = 5 million) and use the weapons on the empty colony.
This way you can still invade enemy corps, but instead of getting all of their planets, you make all the planets die, which allows space for more corps to settle the area.
Another good idea for how to have "outposts" far away from your territory, is say having a colony with only 1k population, so it's morale isn't screwed over.
In this way, the outpost is weak just as it would be in reality, but it will still build nukes and act as a possible striking point against other corps.
I'm no programmer, but it seems that the best place to manage this stuff would be the holdings menu.Paneak wrote:Interesting I like the concept...but what happens if you lose your homeworld? Is it a special dome that place to form another...or a planetary setting?
There are a few options as for what happens when you lose your homeworld.
For the corp that loses it, another one should be automatically assigned (Probably the oldest of the planets in the same system?)
As for how to deal with the bugs of an invading corp gaining a "homeworld" when they can only have 1... it should either
-immediately die
or
-turn into a normal world
Cheesy wrote:you wouldnt have to have one right? cause some peeps have several clusters
That's the whole point. Allowing 1 corp to have "several clusters" (The whole map) Creates terrible stagnation.
Traditionally, Toonces has tried to limit this huge corp size by punishing players for having more colonies, by adding the burden of more work. However, I feel that more realistic, and less labor-intensive methods can be used.
Of course, it'd be better if you had "Raiding abilities", which allow you to, rather than invading a colony to keep it, you can invade it and "exterminate the colony", gaining 1,000 credits for each killed colonist (5,000 colonists killed = 5 million) and use the weapons on the empty colony.
This way you can still invade enemy corps, but instead of getting all of their planets, you make all the planets die, which allows space for more corps to settle the area.
Another good idea for how to have "outposts" far away from your territory, is say having a colony with only 1k population, so it's morale isn't screwed over.
In this way, the outpost is weak just as it would be in reality, but it will still build nukes and act as a possible striking point against other corps.
This is a much older idea than that, though. The original Sid Meier's Civilization had a similar setup under certain governments. A lot of games since have used the idea, and I think it would fit well into SGE.Manganator wrote:I actually got this idea from Rome Total War, which has a morale reduction based on the distance from your capital. It balances the game pretty well.
KG
I love the homeworld idea. It would force corporations to fight out more intensely for domination of one small area. My only concern has been with the difficulty of whiping out an enemy corp. But now that we can sell buildings and jettison colonists it will work very well.
Not to mention the morale hit on your enemy when you take their homeworld.
I would definitely come back this summer if that was implemented, and the reduce in labor needed to mantain an empire would keep a lot of newer players.
Not to mention the morale hit on your enemy when you take their homeworld.
I would definitely come back this summer if that was implemented, and the reduce in labor needed to mantain an empire would keep a lot of newer players.
-
Manganator
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Massachusettes
- Contact:
-
TheDestroyer
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:31 am
-
M2-Destroyer
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:27 pm
- Location: The Bonny, Bonny Banks of Loch Lomond!
- Contact:
-
Manganator
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Massachusettes
- Contact:
Every time I've made a corp, a bunch of faggots on vent get kids who dont even play the server to come try to kill me.awmalzo wrote:thats why server mass invasion allainces are needed.It will rewake a perma for some time. But people like manganator are against these mass invasions so he indirectly promotes server stagnation ;p
That has nothing at all to do with stagnation.
I'd suggest two revisions.
1.) .3 per hop may be a bit much. .15 - .2 would allow decent sized corps on larger sized galaxies. For smaller galaxies, .3 may not be enough. I'd suggest adjusting it based on the size of the galaxy. There is a happy medium somewhere.
2.) Newbies tend to have planets all over the place. This is going to be problematic as they are going to take a serious hit to production because of this. In order to fix that, I'd say corps would only have access to a "home world" when the total number of planets gets to a certain number. I think 20 sounds good, but again that may need to be adjusted.
Manganator has the beginnings of a good idea. Most of you who have posted here who are against it haven't exactly presented any kind of reason you're against it.
1.) .3 per hop may be a bit much. .15 - .2 would allow decent sized corps on larger sized galaxies. For smaller galaxies, .3 may not be enough. I'd suggest adjusting it based on the size of the galaxy. There is a happy medium somewhere.
2.) Newbies tend to have planets all over the place. This is going to be problematic as they are going to take a serious hit to production because of this. In order to fix that, I'd say corps would only have access to a "home world" when the total number of planets gets to a certain number. I think 20 sounds good, but again that may need to be adjusted.
Manganator has the beginnings of a good idea. Most of you who have posted here who are against it haven't exactly presented any kind of reason you're against it.
this could be good in permas sence if we rebanged the old ones to allwo updates to them it would keep the map from stagnateing so fast. on perma 6 there are thousands of players that logged in once and left. then nearly every usefull planets taken. the only things left are smalls gas giants and the more useless ones like volanics and a few mountains. this would make it possible for a noob to compete with an expierienced player instead of looking at the over crowding and desiding its not worth trying and leaveing.
hey if you want we can get yourserver [frontierwars?] to get out of stagnation. If your looking forawrd to this juse tell me and I get some funManganator wrote:Every time I've made a corp, a bunch of faggots on vent get kids who dont even play the server to come try to kill me.awmalzo wrote:thats why server mass invasion allainces are needed.It will rewake a perma for some time. But people like manganator are against these mass invasions so he indirectly promotes server stagnation ;p
That has nothing at all to do with stagnation.
-
Manganator
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Massachusettes
- Contact:
It's because they want to own the entire map, damned be the consequences in stagnation.Caia wrote: Manganator has the beginnings of a good idea. Most of you who have posted here who are against it haven't exactly presented any kind of reason you're against it.
Hell I bet some of the posters here like stagnation.
I like this idea but I have a tweak I'd like. You should have the ability to designate multiple homeworlds, one primary and 2-3 secondaries. The secondaries shouldn't be special except for giving the same moral effect on colonies around them, but the morale decrease should be twice that of the primary homeworld. This way you can have multiple outposts but that's not unlimited either.
/no, bad idea.
All this will do is further stagnate a server once people realize they can't have an empire or set up shop wherever they want. It will make wars as pointless as this thread because there is no reason to go invade your enemy if all the cols are far away and will start losing moral anyway.
What you said here,"This is realistic, because as we know from American history, the further a colony is from the capital of an empire, the more out of touch the emperor, and the more unrest there will be in those colonies."
/\---haha Cuz no one cares wtf is going on in alaska or hawaii anyway right, they have terrible moral and lots of unrest.
again......No!
All this will do is further stagnate a server once people realize they can't have an empire or set up shop wherever they want. It will make wars as pointless as this thread because there is no reason to go invade your enemy if all the cols are far away and will start losing moral anyway.
What you said here,"This is realistic, because as we know from American history, the further a colony is from the capital of an empire, the more out of touch the emperor, and the more unrest there will be in those colonies."
/\---haha Cuz no one cares wtf is going on in alaska or hawaii anyway right, they have terrible moral and lots of unrest.
again......No!