A.Miner Starbase Discussion

OP 22/08/2010 · 05:52 AM #1

Ok people it`s time to vote on these idea`s if you would pls submit all your votes to the empire PollMeister on RT. this will decide which or all of these shall go through. just copy paste the format below with your choices

1) Lakko Version one, with BR of either 4 or 3.
Lakko version two
or Lakko the Redesigned Concept.

2) kyro upkeep reduction (y/n)

3) Livid upkeep reduction (y/n)

4) lyth upkeep reduction (y/n)

5 Chlor build rate reduction and Epidote build rate increase (y/n)

in a format similar to this pls
1) lakko version two
2)Yes
3)No
4)No
5)No

*note the changes to hoko will go through, and Chlor and epidote is a package deal, you can`t get either or.

also only one vote per person, not account, if we find you voted with multiple accounts all your votes will be discounted for wasting our time. Also for those of you that have taken the Lakko as part of a UW Reward, you will have the option to choose another ship.
------------------

These are the current changes proposed by the staff, please discuss them in a constructive manner, feel free to also pm feed back directly to us.

Lakko version one

upkeep is increased from 2,352 to 7,195

Build rate, dropped from 5 to 4 or 3
which means instead of 55,350 pr a turn it`s now 44,280 or 33,210 pr a turn

or

M.Lakko redesign concept
Energy Damage 11,500
Missile Damage 24,000
Hull 55,000
Range 3
Scanner rating 623
Power rating 36,666
1 turn produces 1
Ship upkeep 32,999

Ship Specials
No retaliation
Ships attacked by this ship cannot return fire.

Energy Shield +40%
Absorption Shield -60%
ECM +40%
Ionized Hull -95%

Or..

M.Lakko Ver. 2
4,000 Total Damage
1,500 Energy Damage
1,500 Kinetic Damage
1,000 Missile Damage
Hull 15,000
Scanner 900
Range 8
Power Rating 11,061
1 turn produces 5
Ship upkeep 6,032

Ship Specials
No defense
This ship can`t return fire if attacked.

Energy Shield +30%
Absorption Shield +30% Was +15%
ECM -40% Was -30%
Ionized Hull +40%

Hoko

upkeep increased from 1,450 to 4,475

build rate dropped from 6 to 5
which means instead of 59,670 pr a turn it`s now 49,725 pr a turn

Kyro

upkeep reduced from 45,000 to 32,328

Lyth

upkeep reduced from 52,052 to 41,154

Livid (r)

upkeep reduced from 20,000 to 15,641

Chlor

build rate dropped from 10 to 8

Epidote

build rate increased from 10 to 12

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-28

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-29

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-29

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-29

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-29

W WhiteDragon

23/08/2010 · 07:21 PM #95

As a young A.miner, everything here seems ok, except the BR change to the SB`s.

D DrunkenMasters

23/08/2010 · 06:55 PM #94

HB, with or without upkeep, this won`t prevent the same people doing UWs, don`t lie yourself... I have done enough UWs without lakko and without any UW rewards(like half of mine) and contrary to the popular belief I don`t spam lakko day in and day out.

P prolohz

23/08/2010 · 06:31 PM #93

Nerfing just the miners would just give people the impression that whoever is behind this has either a personal feud against Aminers or that he just wants other races to be stronger in comparison to miners

R RipVanWingnut

23/08/2010 · 06:13 PM #92

yeah, if your going to nerf miners until they are useless, at least do guards at the same time. or, just leave miner the way they are and give everyone but guard, miner, and viral a boost. nerfing is for whiners, go play UC if you love nerfing so much.

B Biohazard

23/08/2010 · 06:11 PM #91

most of these changes sound fair.
When can we expect them?

T Thief

23/08/2010 · 06:04 PM #90

nerf the miners then hb nerf them wont bother me anymore i got a restart option just like everyone else, and i dont have any lakkos as uw rewards, but boost cg income a little? start thread for that? and show in a fair poll please the votes for/against changes? yes i admit i have alot of trouble trusting the staff. this is the only game ive played that the staff play the servers they are admins on... so ill back off on that and just accept that u know what ur doing....

W WackedCrapFleet

23/08/2010 · 05:49 PM #89

and nerf UW rewards! I don`t need lakko to have a nice empire....
C3.7394 Tainted C.3 1,025,270 1,055,425 5000 0 30,155 0 Rutile

this after 2 weeks exploring, and a buttload of artis is more than enough reward for uw`ing. and miners with pyth and galleons is [Removed]

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-24

E EvilLoof

23/08/2010 · 05:46 PM #88

nerf miners, especially bases..... for sure, nerf guards........even more so!

H HoneyBucket

23/08/2010 · 05:25 PM #87

AM... because the game is understaffed and doesn`t get enough attention from big steve... thought we had this convo before... settle for what we get or don`t play was the conclusion i believe...

and once and for all this is not because CC wants it... this thread and the one below proves that... dozens have spoken out that have nothing to do with CC that agree with the majority of these changes and agree that this is a problem. This is not some conspiracy to take you and your allies down.... this is a plea from the majority of the players to fix something that is a problem.

S Sibiriangun

23/08/2010 · 05:01 PM #86

I like the upkeep changes for all but lyth, it seems good as it is for an otherwise very spammable ship.

I think UWs are supposed to be hard... as it is now you just start a tax miner and you are able to UW within a few months if you sit on the turn based ranks. I dont find that in the spirit of the game at all! UWs should be accomplished by those skilled enough who has spend enough time preparing and organizing for it... not by anyone who happens to have lakko and control of the ranks.

And I dont buy the argument about screwing tax miners on TB servers if the buildrate is decreased... It should be just as hard being an unexplorable guardian, so if its too hard, just stay explorable.

A AmericanMinistry

23/08/2010 · 04:56 PM #85

yall have yet to justify making huge changes, and these are huge changes, all at once.... double the upkeep maybe... do not quadriple it... not all at once... why are changes not scheduled? once every six months we have a poll on changes but not anytime cc feels like it?? thats silly.. what if we ran our countries that way? hold elections when we felt like it instead of on a scheduled time wheneverone can prepare for a coming change? game downhill cause one fed is on a power trip

D DarckKnight

23/08/2010 · 04:36 PM #84

don't agree on the new lyth upkeep

And concerning the Lakko Hokko, i think the main problem of those starbases are their range, the upkeep with time, it won't matter much.

J JumpDrives

23/08/2010 · 04:29 PM #83

Miners make enough anyways , they can afford the changes....

H HoneyBucket{HH}

23/08/2010 · 04:06 PM #82

impossible?!? people did uw`s long before any of these bases were around...

and in my opinion they are worth doing just so you can know and say that you did one.. and for the experience of doing it, and the name on the winners list is a nice bonus... and some of the rewards are great incentives and should be kept around.

T Thief

23/08/2010 · 04:03 PM #81

yah i agree hb since the point of the game is to we should make it impossible and not worth doing??? what is the point of that?

A Augustine

23/08/2010 · 03:43 PM #80

indeed HB they should be multi stack wins instead of one

H HoneyBucket{HH}

23/08/2010 · 03:33 PM #79

Also, I would like to move to have all UW Winners on the list, that have had the current version of Lakko in their fleet, to have an asterisk next to their name.

AM, Yeah we have a problem with too many uw`s on turn based, so let`s make it easier for more races to uw... perfect solution. Also solves the massive base spamming by miners on RT. AM you`re full of goods keep `em coming. Not sure what we`d do without you. And personally I think that UW`s Should be hard... and thus those who set it off can be more proud of their accomplishments.

A AmericanMinistry

23/08/2010 · 03:27 PM #78

its all about the point of the game really.... if the object is to finally do a uw then it should not be so hard, especially if u get max creds but right now miners have an advantage, what if you instead of taking away the only srength of the miner, u added to the feds that have a tough time doing a uw.... rt? very hard to do a uw shouldnt be that hard.....

E Edge

23/08/2010 · 03:23 PM #77

I laugh at this people attacking HB hes not the only one for change

collective makes food too you know first point

2nd point is this virals YES them people spent years on that race only to lose D Class so your agrument for spending years on one race holds no water if other races have suffered

3rd if we really want to get into whos against ned is the most aggressive anti change so why not point that out too and tell him not to post as much? o wait your bias obviously

4th DM is right in the end who cares the games dead all i do is research to 200 now and when game dies i know my account will be max research

E Emmdee

23/08/2010 · 03:01 PM #76

I`ve been lurking but want to declare my opinion. I`ve played terran and miner, quit miner on TB lonnnng ago when Lakkos were range 15 and fought like WW2 Italians. The changes to weapons/defences were good and needed, but the unintended consequence was the UW spamming by what had been the hardest race for UW attempts. I have been intending to quit the game over this...I`m so sick of the repetitive Lakko UWs. UWs are fun when they vary a little. Now I always expect lakkos when i see the notice on TB.

Ned, how many/what % of BR`s Ultra UWs in the last 6 months have been Lakkos? How many have failed? Maybe 2? Or just one? Should the "smart player" have a near guarantee of success without having to work hard at stacking as in the old days??

Even new miners make money rapidly. The new upkeep for a non-UW fleet will be no problem, miners will just need to pay attention like the rest of us.

BW/SD
1. I agree with all the proposals except Lyth. Leave Lyth the same. Start with 4/turn Lakko and see what happens.
2. Allow only miners to use miner SBs.
3. No changes of weapons/defense/range for now, doubt that is needed anyway.

Reply