Another question... home planet size?

KarrothMelu wrote:Another question... home planet size?

definitely need larger ones or at least he ability to destroy your own home planet

Seth1483 wrote:definitely need larger ones or at least he ability to destroy your own home planet

thought for a second "destroy someone elses homeplanet" lol

seems reasonable as long as you pick a new "home planet"

How about 200 fields for the Homeworld. That is a nice even number.

I like the idea of a bigger homeworld but not being able to abandon it. The reason you can't abandon it now is to avoid abuse.

love2scoobysnack wrote:

Istalris wrote:Just feel like pointing out that 3x resources production in comparison to 8x game speed is pretty crappy. Bump it up to at least 4 or 5.

What is the speed of resources production in Xtream? Is it 2x? If so I agree that 3x is too slow especially if the max number of planets has been cut in half. I will let the math speak for itself.

20 planets x 2x production = 40

10 planets x 3x production = 30

that means that there is actually a 25% decrease in resource production when compared to Xtream. That being said what ever resource production is in Xtream it needs to be at a minimum doubled just to keep pace due to the proposed reduction in max number of planets. One thing that has become clear to me is that big fleets need lots of resources. If you want this to be a speed server then resource production needs to be fast.

It does not matter if you can get your fleet to a planet in 30 seconds if there are no resources there to take.


I would also like to see a change in the max number of planets I would like to see 15 + 1. The reason for this is that it will do a better job of filling an Xtream sized map. Also by having a different max number of planets I think that it will give the speed universe a different feel. One last reason is that there are 15 slots available in a system why not have it be 15 planets available.

All of this and more, couldn't have put it better myself.

Also, I would recommend rethinking maximum planet size and chances of getting a large planet in the new speed universe. At current I'm pretty sure planet cap is 600, and it's fairly easy to get a large planet even at half the cap that you are never going to worry about filling.

I suggest halving the planet size cap to maybe 300.

Isn't 200 fields a bit high ? There is also Teraformer...
Resources points will most probably be 4000. X-TREME is generally another story, it is better to tweak after standard.
Regarding planets versus gigantic map size, we hope to fill the map with players actually.

Zorg wrote:Isn't 200 fields a bit high ? There is also Teraformer...
.

I don't think that 200 is too high for a Homeworld. I have only been playing in X-TREAM since June and I have filled 197 spaces and just need the resources to build another Teraformer. Also if the max planet size is reduced to 300 from 600 it is likely that Teraformers will be used on colonies instead of primarily only of Homeworlds as it is now.

Zorg wrote:Resources points will most probably be 4000. X-TREME is generally another story, it is better to tweak after standard.

Does that translate into 4x? I think it is fine to tweak after standard but you do have to keep in mind that if you are going to try and have the speed server be the fast server then that means that everything has to be fast. Here is an analogy: Lets compare ZE to a computer

Resource speed is like the CPU, nothing happens fast unless the CPU is fast
Fleet speed is like the video card, While it is very important if you want to play video games my grandmother hasn't noticed that hers is slow.
Map size is like the hard drive, you don't gain anything if you can't fill the space, too small is worse than too big, balance is key.
Building speed is like the speed a hard drive spins, as long as the CPU is fast enough you can play games while you save video form the family vacation
Max number of planets is like RAM, if you want to game while saving video then RAM is the first bottleneck after the CPU

All that being said I know it is not a perfect analogy.

Zorg wrote:Regarding planets versus gigantic map size, we hope to fill the map with players actually

I just had a crazy idea what if instead of making each galaxy bigger you instead increased the number of galaxies.

So this is what I was thinking make 18 galaxies of 249 systems but instead of forcing fleets to fly across all of the galaxies to get from number 1 to number 18 make it a wheel so that number 1 is as close to number 18 as it is number 2. I know the wheel idea has been suggested before but the argument against it was that it would make it too hard to do long fleet saves. If the wheel idea is used and the number of galaxies is doubled and the system size is cut in half then the end result is actually a more compact map. This is because it is closer to go from 1:1:1 to 2:1:1 than it is to go from 1:1:1 to 1:499:1.

In effect using the wheel idea with double the galaxies will allow you to fit an X-TREAM sized map into a Standard sized map. Combine that with increased fleet speeds and you have yourself a fleeters wonderland.

love2scoobysnack wrote:

Zorg wrote:Resources points will most probably be 4000. X-TREME is generally another story, it is better to tweak after standard.

Does that translate into 4x?

No, he's referring to how many resources you would spend to gain a point.

Your wheel Idea is interesting but I find the CPU analogy more compelling,We need faster production before more galaxies with more planets.Zorg seems set on few planets so adding more galaxies would just make it emptier since each person only gets 10.