Author |
Message |
Cothordin
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:49 am Posts: 2606 Location: Cowland
|
BinaryMan wrote: There is no point in worrying about it at this point. Several people are beyond the threshold where it matters, ridiculous ships or double ridiculous ships, what does it matter anyway unless you pvp ? Just avoid them. Let them fund the game. I PVP, thus it matters to me.
_________________ Your right to an opinion does not mean your opinion is right.
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:30 am |
|
 |
MitchellN
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:44 pm Posts: 1582 Location: Western Australia, Australia
|
Cothordin wrote: BinaryMan wrote: There is no point in worrying about it at this point. Several people are beyond the threshold where it matters, ridiculous ships or double ridiculous ships, what does it matter anyway unless you pvp ? Just avoid them. Let them fund the game. I PVP, thus it matters to me. Everytime I have hit you, You have never retaliated.. That being said, +1 to the idea!!
_________________ Why hello there
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:32 am |
|
 |
Cothordin
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:49 am Posts: 2606 Location: Cowland
|
MitchellN wrote: Cothordin wrote: BinaryMan wrote: There is no point in worrying about it at this point. Several people are beyond the threshold where it matters, ridiculous ships or double ridiculous ships, what does it matter anyway unless you pvp ? Just avoid them. Let them fund the game. I PVP, thus it matters to me. Everytime I have hit you, You have never retaliated.. That being said, +1 to the idea!! Iv had better targets Now can anyone counter my argument about it ruining game balance? Or we just gonna hear alot of CCers say they like this without any backing to their opinion.
_________________ Your right to an opinion does not mean your opinion is right.
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:04 am |
|
 |
DMDMDM
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:35 am Posts: 906
|
I'll try, Coth. After a certain rank it's close to impossible to get more planets (due to invasion costs) so you're stuck with improving your existing ones. Obviously using urbanize on a bigger planet would yield better results and the melter is basically the best tool you can use in game to get the biggest possible planet. Talking (more) from a high rank perspective than a CCer perspective, although I am not ashamed to say that I did and will buy GP.
There are plenty of things a CCer can and have got already in game. I don't think this one would break the game (even) more.
_________________"Life is not that complicated. You get up, you go to work, eat three meals, you take a good #&$# and you go back to bed. What's the f@#$ing mystery ?" 
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:16 am |
|
 |
MitchellN
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:44 pm Posts: 1582 Location: Western Australia, Australia
|
Cothordin wrote: MitchellN wrote: Cothordin wrote: I PVP, thus it matters to me. Everytime I have hit you, You have never retaliated.. That being said, +1 to the idea!! Iv had better targets Now can anyone counter my argument about it ruining game balance? Or we just gonna hear alot of CCers say they like this without any backing to their opinion. I'm barely a CCer. I buy occasionally. Ps. You should be honored that I was on your news feed  Jk Jk
_________________ Why hello there
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:19 am |
|
 |
Cothordin
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:49 am Posts: 2606 Location: Cowland
|
DMDMDM wrote: I'll try, Coth. After a certain rank it's close to impossible to get more planets (due to invasion costs) so you're stuck with improving your existing ones. Obviously using urbanize on a bigger planet would yield better results and the melter is basically the best tool you can use in game to get the biggest possible planet. Talking (more) from a high rank perspective than a CCer perspective, although I am not ashamed to say that I did and will buy GP.
There are plenty of things a CCer can and have got already in game. I don't think this one would break the game (even) more. Ok so the problem here then is that the colonization costs surpasses income after a certain point, so rather then adding this which would create a larger gap, why dont we annoy dan into reworking the colonization equation so that the rate it increases by realistically matches the rate "par" rate of income/rank.
_________________ Your right to an opinion does not mean your opinion is right.
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:11 am |
|
 |
DMDMDM
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:35 am Posts: 906
|
Cothordin wrote: Ok so the problem here then is that the colonization costs surpasses income after a certain point, so rather then adding this which would create a larger gap, why dont we annoy dan into reworking the colonization equation so that the rate it increases by realistically matches the rate "par" rate of income/rank. On top of the costs there's also the issue of availability. Plenty of icy planets and not so many decent very massive's to get, outside the gas ones. Still a problem.
_________________"Life is not that complicated. You get up, you go to work, eat three meals, you take a good #&$# and you go back to bed. What's the f@#$ing mystery ?" 
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am |
|
 |
Cothordin
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:49 am Posts: 2606 Location: Cowland
|
DMDMDM wrote: Cothordin wrote: Ok so the problem here then is that the colonization costs surpasses income after a certain point, so rather then adding this which would create a larger gap, why dont we annoy dan into reworking the colonization equation so that the rate it increases by realistically matches the rate "par" rate of income/rank. On top of the costs there's also the issue of availability. Plenty of icy planets and not so many decent very massive's to get, outside the gas ones. Still a problem. Ya thats another problem iv noticed, but I think were just going to have to deal with that one. Traditionally arts and mining were much harder to get and I think once you loose all the rescource buffers you get while ranking up you have to go back to that.
_________________ Your right to an opinion does not mean your opinion is right.
|
Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:21 am |
|
 |
lalalalala
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:31 pm Posts: 97
|
BenderRodriguez wrote: Not just melters, but add the other planet modifiers into the arty store as well for around the same price. Obviously, hydroshifters should be less expensive than melters because they give less of a bonus to the target planet, but I would love to see them available for sale. +1
_________________ Bamboothief
|
Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:43 am |
|
 |
Uy23e
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:04 am Posts: 1998
|
limited but not uber artifacts, imo, should be abled to be purchased at increasing price melter, for example, can cost 75 GP on the first one, but 100 on the 2nd, 133 on the 3rd and so on, no hard limit required dyson and rift are too powerful, imo, to be ever aviliable for sale. but as 15x mega isn't that hard to get for some, i won't be really against the sale of hyper terras. the quantom hydros, zolain analysiers etc can also be considered for sale in this fashion.
_________________ 当所有传奇写下第一个篇章 原来所谓英雄也和我们一样 私は一発の銃弾、銃弾は人の心を持たない。故に、何も考えない。ただ、目的に向かって飛ぶだけ
|
Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:56 am |
|
 |
Remric
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:52 am Posts: 1742 Location: Bridge of my ship, preparing thousands of my tactical officers for the next battle
|
Bumping so it can be tagged and added to database
_________________Brains of Battlestation Dysonia Defense   Support "TRADING FEATURE" at http://galaxylegion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12126
|
Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:03 pm |
|
 |
MitchellN
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:44 pm Posts: 1582 Location: Western Australia, Australia
|
Remric wrote: Bumping so it can be tagged and added to database +1
_________________ Why hello there
|
Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:13 pm |
|
 |
|