Beta Recap / Suggestions

Have some ideas for discussion.

Will try and organize some thoughts by category (QoL/Feature/etc.). But will update as I think of more. I understand some of these may be resolved by future UI/code.

Quality of Life

  • Filter fleets on radar
  • Units display in same order in fleets/fleet scans/shipyards
  • Delete LCs/Habitats/SY/LWF etc
  • Are you sure? on delete structures. Can toggle on and off if there’s a lot of destroying to do.
  • Wait queues for SY/Barracks
  • Fleet queue “Move on Tick XXX”

Gameplay

  • Reduce alliance size to 15
  • Keep 40% of planet stocks on successful invasion
  • Introduce new offensive unit - Tank. Costs more, but nullifies soldier defensive bonus. Has no defensive bonus itself and can be captured upon successful invasion. Forces players to choose Soldiers for versatility of offense/defence or Tanks for pure offense. Overall prevents bunkering of planets.
  • Make BTS Not Useless Again
  • Make resource converters worthwhile (current ratios/energy outputs don’t make it an attractive option).
  • Update resource converter costs to be more intuitive to read
  • 20% population survives on successful invasion
  • Recycling Ships—fleet battles cause metal, mineral and energy debris which can be harvested by special ship class. Encourages fleet battles and maintains competitive edge for people who actually fight.

Features

  • Edit fleet queues (change amount of metal/mineral loaded or destination without delete/reupload)
  • Display overall output on homepage/planet page
  • Mail feature lets you search for rulers if you type a few names
  • See alliance member list if click on alliance. Display alliance leader, too.
  • Queue trade between fleets.
  • Add “Corsaires” – fairly weak ship but no alliance/player tag on it. Just for the lolz of everyone accusing each other for sending ghost fleets in.

Forums/Discord

  • Post community guidelines and rules.
  • Get a moderating team that will enforce them.

Appreciate feedback :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Feedback… These are great.

Only think I would say is the smaller you can make Allainces the better imo. 10-12 feels right to me.

Do away with the Alliance Member limit, for the sake of new players.

I liked the ideas are all good

Except this one, nothing changes. Instead of having an alliance with 30 you will have 2 with 15 and everything will remain the same.

I would like to add.
QOL
On the navigation page, having the possibility of placing the coordinates of the planet, system, sector, galaxy, etc directly
Translate the game into multiple languages.

Jumpgates would like to disagree

1 Like

Anyone that says alliance member limits hurt new players is only partially right.

Generally lower alliance sizes will help new players join together with their friends and enjoy the process. And not feel intimidated by huge numbers.

What they wont have is the guidance and mentoring that experianced people bring. But we could foster a better culture around the basics on the forum. Like. Population is good, make sure it is high, spare space means you don’t have enough mines etc.

But the flip slide is they will also create a more complex cultural place as opposed to the weird cultures we have. Larger alliance numbers enable power blocks… Which enables some of the wierd stuff in this game.

Yes you will get aligned alliances. But it will be way more complicated to actually help each other defensively… You can still help offensively by attacking the same target but hell, That’s happening now anyway so eh.

And in general would make the game more offensive and less defensive which along with suggestions like the tanks shift the balance nicely. The default is to defend and build capital and then pray on smaller fish. If everyone is relatively small that is harder to do effectively. And if it is harder to defend then that also plays into that.

My two cents.

I would be interested in seeing how this game worked with 2/3/4 fixed factions (think wow horde/alliance). Which are fixed on entry into the game.

There would need to be some load balancing and stuff to make it work. So one faction didn’t massively outnumber another.

But it would simplify the political side, as there would be clear enemy and allied alliances or players.

It might also make the single player experience a bit more viable since there are built in friends. And might help the community expand naturally past alliances.

Wit respect to game play. I’d say still having alliances is fine. And probably limiting the number between 10-30. Only alliance member can use JGs, but factions fleets don’t fire on each other.

Would make the game play out quite differently. But also be quite interesting.

Any thoughts from the DG elite?

Already commented on discord, might as well post it here.

Against the alliance limit:

  • small alliance size benefits mostly hyper active/organized alliances, it will be lethal for newbies and semi-active alliances that look for safety in numbers and for good mix between veterans and newbies.

  • small alliance size will enforce “single out players/teams” strategy even more than the current code. With everyone in gal1 we will inevitably end up with at least some powerblocks (or you’ll have 3 sub-alliances of SoL fighting vs ex. 3 sub-alliances of DE). And due to restrictions of jg and defending people will be forced to focus on only one of the sub alliances (i.e. what happened to WP in this round war). This is extremely unhealthy for the community and the game and I can’t support any changes that would make it even more efficient than it currently is.

I’m also against the tank. Just remove the 3/2 defender bonus. Period.

Rest of the suggestions look good to me :slight_smile:

1 Like

Re:Tank – I guess I’m offering the Tank as a suggestion because late-stage play gets sluggish. Adding something with pure offensive power that lets you cut through masses of stocked up soldiers will increase invasions in the late game by planets not seeming “worth it”. Trying to revamp later play so that there something more interesting happening there.

Re: alliance size – I should think encouraging activity is a good thing in this game? Regardless, noobs don’t congregate in large enough alliances to be sufficiently protected because they don’t know anyone. Currently large alliance sizes benefit large veteran alliances (DE/ROF/etc.) who have formed powerblocks regardless. I’m hoping that some of this part of the diplomatic side of things subsides in future rounds now that we understand that G1 is going to be an eternal ■■■■■■■■■■■.

Even with that being the case, smaller alliances means you have a better shot at not getting intercepted. Smaller alliances can’t really do anything against larger forces because the numbers of folks who can use JGs to intercept you is just too great. This change evens the playing field. Maybe it’ll be 3 DE teams vs 3 SoL teams, but I generally think it’ll be a more interesting combat.

1 Like

Limiting who can intercept and help defensively changes the nature of alliance combat dramatically imo. Which is why I am for smaller alliances.

Even if alliances federate and join forces they are way way way less effective than being formalised.