✦ GC FORUM Galactic Conquest
Sign in
Back to the Game
Forum Index › General Discussion › Capital Nerf

Capital Nerf

Started by Maraudian · 30/08/2007 · 08:07 PM · 322 replies · 11 reads
M MaraudianOP
OP 30/08/2007 · 08:07 PM
well yes it was suggested in the A miner post but yar

Herc 1
Lictor 1
Lyth 2
Pyth 2
Angel 2
Nirv 2 everyone wants that if it goes ahead
Tyr fine

these are idea`s liked alot by the majority , we have a few who dont like it and make big offencive rants that generally show they dont know a great deal past there own empire etc ( no offence intended , you play the game too so yar ok )

but those who do know what there talking about and suprising alot of those who do but take advantage of high build rates also like this idea , ive had alot of nice pms too about this and some messages upon waking up saying its a nice idea and to ignore the ranting few who dont care about ` the greater good ` , even turnbased empires like this idea so well this is its thread

i dont wanna hear no viral rants , especially upkeep , ive told you well over a hundred times now the only way i can do it is toedit the marauders ship , and thats unfair on marauder , one of the reasons to be that race is low upkeep.

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-04
C {ching}
05/09/2007 · 08:51 PM
Well I am guard on fast and I personally think the build rates for them will be too high, Corrundum is around 130k p/t lol. Arguments for the base pr of a guard giving them an excuse to have high build rate are not valid cuz u can have huge base pr with any race.
D DrunkenMasters
05/09/2007 · 04:47 PM
Why don`t you simply double the build rate of strafez to encourage stacking instead of nerfing all big ships` build rates? That way everybody except spammers will be happy. Spams will be punished easily. Sure, you will lose 1 col but then you will easily get 3 if you are stacked and know you are spammed. Even guards will start stacking more often because strafez is cheap enough even for them. And with queen/runner build rates on par or > ruby/tourm build rate I bet many more guards will stack. The game will become more tricky in all aspects, there will be more UW attempts for sure = a lot more fun. I know many people will be against the idea but don`t anathemise me before you think about it.

strafez x100 buildrate wont even cure the problem , even if they `dont` spam the stuff with the insane buildrate

capital buildrate drop will and alot of others do agree, even if they dont like it. im sure you also agree this `should` work and have numerous good affects , and it doesnt erase spamming , it just makes it more turn sensible compared to stacking. making stacking a greater step closer and advantagous to spam

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-05
O Omegian
05/09/2007 · 09:53 AM
well the problem Strike is that if the ships are nerfed, Guardians can outbuild any race even quicker, so its kind of a problem, Im saying the larger pr 2 turn per ship or sometimes the one, might have to decrease the hull or something...

As some people said the ruby/tourm is fine on building, but not so sure about G. Corundums anymore, even though i spam them like crazy because of their enourmous BR/PR hehe

reasonable and fair argument, but lets see how it goes

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-05
S StrikeFreedom
05/09/2007 · 07:33 AM
i don think it wise to nerf guard ship.. imagine u having high base pr, and trying to go high to fight.. it will really takes time to climb if guard ship is nerf.. ppl with low base pr, less then 300k, will be able to build decent offensive stack or defensive stack, spam or balance in jus 45 turns.. cos they oni need to build to around 700k or 800k pr.. whereas for guard, with a base of 1m or 2m, even 3m for my case, they need to build to at least 2x of their base pr in order for their stack to be effective.. guard already needs a longer time than other race to build a stack at the pr in which their based pr will not hinder the battling.. so pls don make it even longer..
C {ching}
05/09/2007 · 04:00 AM
People play the game for different reasons, so UW is not the be all and end all. I see it more of a thing to do when leaving the game. Anyway - now we need to think of wot`s gona happen to Guardian. Are they gona get nerfed?

doubt it , they are balanced , G and L better but suck , ruby tourm and k class = low build rate , they really should have dominence in building etc ( not being baised because im a guardian as my main or anything as hell i dont go above 5m pr and i usually have about 5 stacks of nuetral / special and i really dont need turns as not many people hit me when building... , only takes a few minutes too on RT ( yes turnbased i know its a bigger difference to you guys , but a guardian on turnbased i also feel deserves this adv )

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-05
A armenia4ever
05/09/2007 · 03:01 AM
Maybe if we increase the smaller ship build rates, people might use them more. Alot of the smaller ships arent bad, but whos going to spend 500 turns trying to build enough of them to do anything?


Lets say we do these nerfs, will it decrease spamming at all? I dont know really. I guess we`ll see.

well if it doesnt , and im confident it will promote stacking , but spammers will still spam , stackers wont have a major turn disadvantage like before though , but yes if it doesnt , it takes julatsa about 10 seconds to tick that on unit back on , this game was made through trial and error , alot of trial and error

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-05
D DrunkenMasters
05/09/2007 · 02:38 AM
That was exactly my point, nerf the caps but increase the smaller ships(mainly frigates, fighters) because a big increase in the destroyers will be more than unnecessary.
D Deiloche
05/09/2007 · 02:07 AM
:) I like.

On the same note... low ship buildrates should be improved, and some of those ships should be revamped. After all, if the dragoon can be turned into the immortal... ahahaha.
M MaraudianOP
04/09/2007 · 11:52 PM
well editted post above as thats what everyone whos being logical and fair about the idea rather than ranting about terran terran terran has mentioned nirv will also need to drop
D Deiloche
04/09/2007 · 11:53 AM
Yeah, good point. The nirv IS highly spammed already... so a reduction is a good idea.

And yes. UW is the point to the game... high incomes combined with careful politics let you do something like my untouchable ultra UW. ^^;
D DrunkenMasters
03/09/2007 · 11:06 PM
Well I absolutely agree with africa, Winners list = Players with succesful UWs, so UW is the ultimate goal in the end. You can`t do one without artis and nice economy.

Guardians , like said many times there are many ways to play this game , UW economy war , fighting artifacts , alot of people stick to one a few and completely ignorant to the others , they usually end up whining over it too , like calling arti`s unbalanced because they dont dig ( example )

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-04
A Africa
03/09/2007 · 08:04 PM
I agree with Balzac on the economic issue. (and this is for turn-based only as rt is different money-wise).

Income is much more than means to an end. Its everything together with arties.


The income per turn is important when it comes to sustaining a high pr fleet and still make money and also important when it comes to your ability to go really high from time to time (during uws)

Artis are obvious (Historia-BTC wars are well known and bitter-fought..lol)

I dont really care if you can beat me 9 times out of 10 if you cant move beyond 4 mill pr I`ll just out run you.

EA, with the tactic youre talking about you wont be able to ever make a big influence on slower server( unless the pr-range youre talking about is the highest one on your server).

Your income is very important here. Especially when it comes to uw-attempts. Now, poeple might say, Well, I dont wanna do uws so I dont need big incomes (and big planet counts to get it). This is fine by me, but I dont think the game should be adjusted for this type of playing style.
O Omegian
03/09/2007 · 09:30 AM
Ahh, yep thats it, thanks for clearing my memory, Eh Nirvana is the selected spam ship on slower servers, so it being questionable is now a yes if this goes through.
E EvilAbadayos
03/09/2007 · 08:28 AM
I think I did state on slower servers turns are worth more and thus it would effect them a lot more different than it would on RT for obvious reasons

Omeg, I think the NPC you are talking about was the Lucous event (or whatever that guy was called) were the guides/admins played the empire like their own with unlimited BTC/STC`s on all servers, building up to 10 mill in an instant on slower servers and wiping out days worth of fleet building. I still have saved battle reports from that even on the PC somewere.

Summing up my point I have made thus far:

- this nerf is un-needed as I have said in my first post here

- If this nerf does go ahead make destroyer and cruiser and below class ships have a slightly higher build rate from 1.2-1.5 times current.

- it will impact slower servers alot more than RT

- Nirv will be the new flavor of the month for spamming, once that in turn gets nerfed another ship will take it`s place, making the update make the game more like UC with everything being pretty much a carbon copy of each other with minor differences.

I think there are a few more points but I just woke up and can`t be bothered re-reading my posts here.
F forald
03/09/2007 · 06:41 AM
i agree with ragnorak, don`t nerf the big ships, just buff the small ones, make them more appealing... like lower upkeep (should work if you`re high pr fighter) or higher buildrate which makes for more exciting play o,O

this is a bad idea even though its almost the same

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-04
C {ching}
03/09/2007 · 06:27 AM
I think the majority`s opinion here is that this wont work, or will be more trouble than it`s worth. Prob best to just put the lictor build rate back to 2 and leave as is. Maybe increase straffez build rates seen as most spammed ships are weak to chem.

not really its just like 5 empires who dont want there capitals decreased , they havent mentioned 1 reason why it wont work :/

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-04
B Balzac
03/09/2007 · 05:45 AM
and why not leave everything as it is , people already knew what the story goes ...
I am here now for some point now , and always tried to make balanced fleets , there are a lot of players that know me and can corroborate that statement, but there are players that will ALWAYS make there moves in spamming fleet , there are some also that even spam M.Flysch ... and that`s not a capital ship .

if i left everything as it is , the game wouldnt be as successfull and balanced as it has been recently , im happy knowing that the game is getting more balanced and would like to balance it more and more till its all perfect and just waiting for future updates from ste :/

people who spammed flysch did so because , they had extreemly low odds of winning any other way , thats different now , A miner was the only race that had ` impossible ` ` umbalance ` and so on in combat , and thats a solid fact so you cant argue with it.

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-04
R Ragnarok
03/09/2007 · 04:52 AM
This might be a bad question but, why nerf capitals when you could increase the build rate of the smaller ships instead? Like make build rate for garuda 20 and thor 16 or something.

this may seem like a bad answer but , why increase every ship in the game making them just as spamable when you can just decrease capitals , i mean clearly this the correct path and all but why the hell would we want to disable an infinite ammo cheat on a FPS... ( example ) some people dig that kind of thing , but me i like balance and i hate games that dont have it , gc can have it and a small nerf on cap build rate will help it greatly

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-04
O Omegian
03/09/2007 · 03:21 AM
Balzac, he agrees tweaking is out of order.

But EA, he did bring up a point, during a UW ... for turnbased not RT, turns count alot more and so do artifacts. For example I cant every dig nor fuse because i live in the americas, i would have to be up at 330-5 am to dig ... Thats a sacrifice i make for the game to wake up and be groggy or not.

The Kalzul has never attacked me, but other NPCs have in the past before the rule was passed where they shouldnt, i have the attack logs on my forum somewhere.

NPC can atack anyone they feel , dunno what dillusion told you there was a rule stating otherwise , kalzul however has never atacked anyone as EA correctly stated it is a passive npc that defends only , at 1b pr it deals less damage than empires at like 100m pr , hence why its so easy to destroy on any gamespeed

Anyway I also agree that Nirvan would be the next spam ship if this proceeds, actually alot of slow turnbased users use the herc/nirv or nirv, dummy spam ... sure they only win 1-2 cols but it isnt worth it heh

Edited by Maraudian on 2007-09-04
E EvilAbadayos
02/09/2007 · 10:53 PM
my opinions are stated in my previous posts.
Page 8 of 17

Reply

⚠
You must sign in before you can reply.
Sign in to the game and come back — the forum uses your game account.