Search Results

Basically, add a [Alliance] tag to the bidder name on the AH, so you can see which alliance the player is from right there. Makes it easier for people not to bid against allies. Naturally, also please include such tags in the history, to see which alliance has a good streak on the AH.

+1 from me too, good to see another research do something in the late game. My small change proposal would be to make it just increase capacity by 5% per level starting from level 1. Ends up around the same % as this, and is more in line with what other researches do. Maybe make it apply to all ships as well, would be more consistent and the effect on combat ships would be rather minimal (except for RIPs).

I say, let people build whatever they want, but it has to be rebuilt during the 72-hour window that the WF is around for (speed of rebuilding is equal to speed you'd get by just building those ships). You can build a lot in 72 hours, if you run your shipyards at 100%, but it won't be something massive, unless you have a big nanite as well. They could also choose what they want rebuilt too, obviously.

Drop the "you can rebuild the entire WF in 12 hours no matter the size" and it's balanced. You start to show ignorance here by saying that it's "the fault of the attacker" that he can stand to lose more than the defender, when it's the defender that is at fault for creating an opening which attackers can exploit. Not only that, massive hits on the top players will cause heavy losses for both sides. You can't avoid losing a lot when engaging a fleet that's not that much smaller than yours (with/w…

Completely, utterly opposed. The game can kick someone just before a hit, and this could cause them to not log back in before the hit.

Well, I was hoping you'd make the data get read from API, rather than locally. Maybe add an option that automatically adjusts this time, checks the user time zone, compares it to the server time zone, and adjusts the time accordingly? AGO displays both server time and local time on top of the page, could use the difference in there.

TopRaider gets the time from the page when uploading the CRs to the page. When that time is edited, it can cause problems. I suggest/ask that the server time be used instead.

Lets bump this I guess. Also, the API key could change with each password change, would solve the account giving/trade problem since passwords are expected to be changed at the end of the trade.

No, the user has to be able to get his account back. Imagine if you had something come up that made you not come online for a month (you v-moded), and then find out that your account was just handed to someone you don't know, possibly don't know how to play, and you only got back a 3 euro coupon for the DM you had on the acc. I agree with the idea not to delete inactive accounts above a certain size, assuming they're not v-moded. Inactives may be a nuisance when setting up a new planet, but they…

So you propose we implement a special unique fuel calculation just for recyclers, because you don't want to pay that extra deut to launch those recs according to the currently working common system that is the same across all ships. There is one fuel consumption formula, and unless you have something more than "I don't want to pay so much deut", it's not going to change. Current formula: 46ae8ce39d49d0d0c78e29d0ebac31e0.png Perhaps propose how we could change this instead. And I still wait to he…

So you want to change the very foundation of the game, how it works, so that they only take 30% more fuel when flying at 100%, and somehow also be more expensive than what comb recs do at 100% when matching their speed? Please tell me what experience you have with this game.

Quote from gamer2014: “ good thats only your opinion which isnt worth anything if you cant back it up with facts” My opinion is backed by over 4 years of game experience, which achieved me top 1 research on the uni I play with a big margin, leadership in one of the two leading alliances on said uni, and the fact that I actually have to deal with these "too high" FS costs that from what I gather neither of you have to. Those things are facts. What is your opinion backed by? Bad grammar? Quote fro…

Well, from that I can tell you the deut consumption doesn't become that big of a deal when you actually get the drives, assuming you get them at a reasonable time and don't try to rush them when you clearly can't afford them. Which is the impression I get from you right now. At least double your economy, get a 10th planet, develop your account more. Better recycler drives are meant to be something you get at the end-game/when you have a lot more than what you have right now. Still would like an …

Yeah, your suggestions are more unreasonable than what I just presented even if hyper recs get 30% higher deut consumption than impulse. That won't fly. It won't "maybe" fly, it just won't. Like I have shown above, by slowing down you can reduce the fuel consumption on a harvest mission down to a bearable percentage with hyper, and almost equal percentage with impulse. Your suggestion would make having a combustion drive recs a disadvantage on all fronts, reduce launch cost on hyper recs by 50% …

I believe I made my opinion clear on that it shouldn't change, iguypouf also seems to be of this opinion. How much do you want to change it then? The way you speak I figure we'd have to change base fuel consumption to 400 for impulse and 500 for hyper do satisfy you. Do you have any reasonable suggestions?

Because the way deut consumption works, if you reduce it to meet the old numbers, you'll drastically reduce the cost it takes to launch at those insane speeds. Also, should've said it earlier Quote from Maximus10: “there are some arguments, what you posted is not an argument” It is very much an argument, seeing as it shows there's a system to the change. You know, this game often has those. Your "arguments" rather seem to be just complaints about the fuel cost, because the increase in fuel costs…

Does battlecruiser get a new engine? No. So fuel consumption doesn't change either. Different drive, different specs. Recs have always eaten a lot of deut, stands to reason a refit would make it eat even more. SC refit follows the same trend I specified above, both base speed and fuel consumption doubled. Bombers only get a small bump to the base speed with HD8, but they already eat a lake with each launch. I've got impulse 18 on uni1.us, just so you know I speak from experience when it comes to…

Combustion base speed: 2000 Combustion fuel consumption: 300 Impulse base speed: 4000 Combustion fuel consumption: 600 Hyperdrive base speed: 6000 Hyperdrive fuel consumption: 900 See the pattern?

From what I know, the cost is roughly the same for the same flighttime, when comparing a 100% comb drive and what the same flighttime with impulse. First and foremost, the launch cost for a 100% launch needs to be higher than what you get with the older drive, since the new one is faster. This requires increase in fuel consumption, which in turn increases everything else. For comparison: 1:1 to 1:83 with 10k recs (200.000.000 capacity) 100% combustion 18 - 4:12:38 - 3.596.626 deut 60% impulse 17…

Recs have always eaten a lot of deut, and they will continue to do so, to uphold balance. It's not about how much it costs to get there, but how those recs play out after getting there. Slowing recs to smaller speeds reduces the launch cost significantly, and you have the option of going full-speed when you need it. As for RL stuff, you essentially shove more fuel into the engine to make it go faster than it used to. Even with newer engines you're bound not to have exactly "efficient" combustion…