Proposal Reduce CS Population

DeletedUser50935

Guest
Proposal: Reduce the population value of the colony ship unit from 170 to 10-50 (not sure on a value, would need to be discussed).

Reason: The 170 pop value of a CS makes building CS nukes (and killing them) a really efficient way to canabalise BP, and whilst reducing it would not stop BP canibilization, it would hopefully make it less efficient and a less viable process.

Details: I think this is fairly self explanatory, but to reiterate, reduce the population value of the colony ship unit from 170 to 10-50, to try and make killing your own CS' an unviable strategy for growth+BP.

Visual Aids: If anybody wants to make one, please PM it to me and I will add it, don't think one is necessary though.

Balance/Abuse Prevention: N/A, this idea aims to prevent abuse.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
One problem I see with this is that it would be easier to get more CSs as they would cost less population. 170 population is the cost so it is hard to get a larger number of them. Reduce the population and people could build 2 or 3 CSs in cases where only 1 could have been built.
 

DeletedUser35722

Guest
this is a very bad idea i strongly disagree
smiley_emoticons_daumendreh2.gif
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
I think the population cost is good as it is, for a few reasons:
  • A CS is meant to be a serious investment, and a low population cost would make them much more expendable (assuming that you lower the resource cost as well).
  • If you can have a lot more of them in a city, it makes it easier to spam CSs, which makes it harder to snipe as a defender.
  • It would mess with the Sea Storm mechanics. At the moment, you can send up to 39 LS (or 24 triremes) and your CS will be immune to Sea Storm. If a CS had a population cost of 50, your maximum storm-proof escort is 116 population, which is 11 LS or 7 triremes. And that's with the highest population cost that you suggested for a CS. Personally, I think that that is not a good thing.
 

DeletedUser50935

Guest
Kal Gordon said:
I think the population cost is good as it is, for a few reasons:
  • A CS is meant to be a serious investment, and a low population cost would make them much more expendable (assuming that you lower the resource cost as well).
  • If you can have a lot more of them in a city, it makes it easier to spam CSs, which makes it harder to snipe as a defender.
  • It would mess with the Sea Storm mechanics. At the moment, you can send up to 39 LS (or 24 triremes) and your CS will be immune to Sea Storm. If a CS had a population cost of 50, your maximum storm-proof escort is 116 population, which is 11 LS or 7 triremes. And that's with the highest population cost that you suggested for a CS. Personally, I think that that is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the points.

My intention was for CS resource cost to remain the same, so it would be possible, but definitely not practical to "spam" CS'. The main problem I see however, is the seastorm mechanics, unless inno could somehow keep the seastorm mechanics the same (39LS, 24Tri) but reduce the population value, if not then this idea would be defunct.

I just don't think killing CS' should be a viable strategy.
 

DeletedUser54339

Guest
Even if this idea worked and people didn't cannibalise using colony ships, other units would be used instead. One of the more egregious examples of cannibalisation I've seen recently involved fast transports - think the player was called Derek? Or Marek? Or something like that :p

Gaining BP by foul means rather than fair needs addressing, but this creates more problems than it would solve.
 

collect78900

Phrourach
@figtree2 @Jamezbeast

I believe the idea behind this proposal is correct we dont want simmers or players to build cs send them to some small city and then kill those cs it is a very easy way to earn bps and gain slots.In fact these players should be aiming for fighting and gaining bps not killing their own troops.
I suggest the devs could come up of a way that a player cant kill more than 1 of his own cs in a month.
I guess we could brainstorm and come up with a solution to this "simming bps" problem and sort it out it takes the fun out of the game i support jamez cause even though the idea needs some improvement.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
collect78900 said:
@figtree2 @Jamezbeast

I believe the idea behind this proposal is correct we dont want simmers or players to build cs send them to some small city and then kill those cs it is a very easy way to earn bps and gain slots.In fact these players should be aiming for fighting and gaining bps not killing their own troops.
I suggest the devs could come up of a way that a player cant kill more than 1 of his own cs in a month.
I guess we could brainstorm and come up with a solution to this "simming bps" problem and sort it out it takes the fun out of the game i support jamez cause even though the idea needs some improvement.
Click to expand...
Or... have it where a player can't kill his own troops period.
 

DeletedUser35722

Guest
there is no way around it in my view.
Stopping people Killing your own troops won't stop people abusing the system. It only takes 2 players to build CS for each other, there is always a way around that. Developers could also reduce CS population but that will make killing CS's less fun as part of breaking a siege, for example, is to see who get's the CS and get's that bit of extra BP. And then finally if they do come to reduce the population of these CS then like noted above, players can just build transports which are just as fruitful for BP abusing.

SO the abusers will continue till the end
smiley_emoticons_grepo_pacman.gif



edit : i think the expression is : a catch 22 situation. no way out of this, but if there is please enlighten me
 

collect78900

Phrourach
@Jamezbeast @figtree2

I got an idea

How about an auto destruct button only for cs!

1.A player cannot kill his own cs
2.A player cannot kill his alliance members cs more than twice a month.
If a city has been revolted then point 1 is revoked temporarily but a limit of only 1 cs can be killed is enforced per revolt.

now in case a player wishes to kill his own cs there will be an auto distruct cs button in harbor tab.
on pressing the button the player gains back the cs pop(no 50% res refunded) and has to pay an extra cost of 5k res each(wood,rock,stone),and longer cs tts from that city is enforced i.e longer by 15% of the current tt for 2 days......
After 2 days if the player again pushes auto destruct then the extra cost inc by 2k each upto max limit of 9k each res and longer tts by 15%+2%each time......
to reset counter for auto destruct penalty the level of penalty is reduced i.e -2k and -2% every 4 days!
 

DeletedUser54539

Guest
To stop playing killing of own CS.
Instead stop it where players cannot kill there own CS's.. Period!
Or Only Allow Players to build CS's based on Slots.

1 Slot- 2 CS.
2 Slots- 3 CS.
3 Slots- 4 CS.
"Etc"

That will stop the abuse of killing own CS's.
 

DeletedUser53164

Guest
I setup a CS suicide program within my alliance a few months ago to test the viability of this strategy. It does work, but it does not produce enough BPs to be worth doing anything about.

Some things to keep in mind: You cannot kill a CS by attacking your own city. It will visit and then return. The BPs from killing a CS are divided among those defending, distributed based on how much defense each player has (the owner of the defending cities gets a large extra cut as well). CSs are expensive, and they take a lot of population. This mean that a city dedicated to making suicide CSs is not useful for making nukes. To generate significant amounts of BPs, you need at least 5 or 10 players, each with a city dedicated to making CSs. And my experience indicates that getting 5 to 10 players to coordinate well enough to even make a half decent amount of BPs is nearly impossible. In addition, the amount of BPs gained loses value with size. When you only have a few slots, yeah, the BPs from a few CSs makes a big difference. Once you have 10 or 15 slots, the BPs gotten from suicide CSs is barely worth anything.

In short, on average, you will make more BPs using your cities to make nukes than you will using them to make suicide CSs. If you already have a CS that you just need to dispose of, suicide is a useful way of cutting your losses. Otherwise, you will get more BPs faster by playing more aggressively.

In other words, CS suicide is not even close to an optimal BP generating strategy. If people want to use it, let them. It will give you the advantage.
 

DeletedUser53164

Guest
On a side note, I have seen the following suggestion in a few places here:

A player cannot kill his alliance members cs more than twice a month.
​
This would take some work to implement, and then people would just work with other alliances. In short, this encourages multi-alliance coalitions. This is a bad idea, and it also would not make any difference at all in resolving the problem.
 

DeletedUser36146

Guest
WOW just found this thread - this has to be the worst idea since someone thought up WW (and Im including the hardour check fiasco and War Packages tho that is a close second)
Seroiusly have you given no thought to the consequences to the infrastucture of the game - no of course you havent
You have single handedly managed to kill off the rim and condemn every new player that gets out of BP to an incessant wave of fler attacks while people hunt for 10 BP

Or have you forgotten that players out there need BP for their farming villages

Words fail me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top