Online multiplayer strategy game

Create a new lot in the market, ships with 300% exp.

Would be nice
And second thing:
Increase maximum amount of credits player can have, that would resolve market bug.

__________________________
If Fortune turns ass to you - kick that ass...

If you have some for sale I can take them off your hands

__________________________
Previous Aliases:
JR Scovill
Future SL Ruler
Reaper Of Souls
Reaper Of Souls2
ReaperOfSouls90
RosReborn

no, i don't, but i talk about ships with maximum price (default price. i think around 2000 - 3000 credits for 1) you can by from admin (NPC market).

Not putting them in as a market good - would put a lower limit on the value of T. Though - some mechanic to make training more interesting might be good. Maybe split the shield into T and E portions, require killing separately, give T exp instead of the ship? That one no - too big a change to the game.

Still, training assaults is somewhat boring and can be stressful; game mechanics should contribute to fun.

Maybe I should make them buildable for their full cost from the buildings menu w/o a queue? Changes some game mechanics; harder to detect training though can still send a news message, no second planet required, etc. Not sure. Could make training the traditional way slightly cheaper perhaps. I'm sure there's a better idea somewhere .

__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

That would be a nice idea, on fighters also since trying to find someone to help train can be a pain on occasion. But agree that should be a premium for it since could be saving a lot of time. I have a buyer regularly buying at 1.6M T plus the I cost, for an empty trained assault. So I think it should be higher than that if make it, perhaps at 1.7M, that is a markup of about 12% over the most expensive training planet, or 18% over a 10x planet, but provides no risk and no time requirement.

Could do similar on fighters if possible, costs about 300k S to train one, so mark it up to 355k or so.

I think this is genius. You can set it up to drain the same resources or more (Charge for the Iron as well or even other resources). Honestly the time requirement of training and all the clicking for no player interaction to be able to crash a HW is very intensive even by 2003 standards let alone now. This mechanic wouldn't injure the game resources in any way but would allow people to spend a couple hours getting ready for a HW attack instead of full days training.

__________________________
I am here to help in anyway I can! Let's have fun!

Yeah - general rule of thumb: interacting with the game server is boring. Interacting with other players is potentially interesting. SL doesn't have an advanced AI... nor do I particularly plan to build one. Even the best AI becomes predictable. Thus, I can go the content route (as WOW, etc - story, missions, etc) - but that runs out fast enough. Or - I can go the "design game mechanics to encourage player interaction" route - which if EVE Online is any indication, works really well for longevity.

I agree that training fighters is difficult - but frankly that might be a better direction to take training assaults - requiring interaction of some kind. Rather than focusing on minimizing interaction w/the server, my focus should be on maximizing interaction with other players (in non-boring ways).

Of course, any mechanics will need to be balanced against the fact that players collaborate, not just compete.

Maybe, reduce XP from training vs single target - good boosts only by killing new players? That would encourage interaction by either hunting enemies, or by gathering larger active clans - both of which seem positive to me.

__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

@zyx - I'm hesitant to increase the credit limit. One of the big lessons I've learned from EVE Online is that vets should have more breadth than new players, instead of depth, and this is accomplished by putting upper limits on values.

Contrast OGame, which has no upper limits - they had to shard their game into hundreds of universes (which reduces interaction) and start everybody at the same time for players to have an even chance. (They are doing well last I checked - it is fun to watch the numbers grow higher. I also liked Cookie Clicker and still "play" Progress Quest, neither of which has interaction).

So, generally, rather than increasing limits I'd prefer to decrease them - to shorten the height gap between the veteran and the newbie. On the other hand, that means game mechanics need to handle breadth well - such as being able to manage many models/fleets of ships, etc.

__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

An increased percentage from capturing a player gathering planet vs a left SP would be cool... as long as there are plenty of player planet options, which means lots of HW as a strategy needs to be dismantled and go to a few stronger HW strategy with numerous gathering planets to help support a player

@Vicandius that (few HWs, lots of production planets) was the dominant strategy last time I played seriously; has that changed since?

__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.