What the new Hyperspace should have

[Siaon]

Experience

Items should be linked to experience, so people can't simply receive tons of money and buy everything, but need to show some skills too.

 

Money

Money should be split between the team, the killer should receive say 50% and the other 50% should be divided amongst the rest of the team in even shares. Experience, however should not be split - ever.

 

A cost-curve

Better items should cost a lot more, also another lot more for the amount of items you already have, go back to Mooky&Me's thread on the old forums about the details of this system.

 

Warp Drive

This ultra expensive, huge slot amount taking device, will let you and all friendly units in a certain radius teleport to a designated spot within a certain amount of time, it's not completely precise, but who cares if you end up in an asteroid and die - it's for the hive!

 

And erhm, plenty more, but I should be studying right now, besides it's not up right now.

 

EDIT: fixed the bold -Dr

[Bomook]

I don't think the old posts are up anymore

 

Here's a quick reiteration of the most basic exponential cost curve idea:

an upgrade's cost = 1000 * 1.21 ^ (number of upgrades)

the maximum amount of upgrades per category is 10 instead of 5.

 

for the less mathematically able: the more upgrades you have, the more expensive they get. This is just like an experience curve in most role-playing games.

 

supplemental idea:

The otherwise maximum amount of one type of upgrade is 5. Enhancers are now used to increase the maximum amount of one type of upgrade rather than the total amount of upgrades (which are now technically unlimited). Enhancers are purchased as upgrades. As such, they increase the "number of upgrades" counter. Directly, this makes no immediate change on the price; however, enhancers have a profound effect on the future cost of all upgrades, since the curve is exponential.

 

supplemental idea:

add 1000*1.5 ^ (number of same type of upgrade) into the main upgrade cost formula. Enhancers will be eliminated. All this addition does is make it more expensive to have more of the same type of upgrade. Unlike the enhancer idea listed above, having more of the same type of upgrade will not affect the cost of other upgrades.

 

The experience idea sounds good. It will also be an excellent way to prevent everyone from simply using the best ship (a.k.a. the lame ship). As long as it doesn't become too complex, this system is good.

 

The warp drive is intriguing. How about having a "m!@#$%^&* portal"? If someone goes somewhere, he can type "?drop" or something like that, then type "?portal" to warp all nearby freqmates to the location of the "?drop". If the ship laying the m!@#$%^&* portal is killed, then the "?drop" location is deleted. This would be interesting, having an infiltrator ship get somewhere inside the enemy base, lay a m!@#$%^&* portal, leave, and then get together with some friendly, heavier, and stronger ships, return to the portal, and give the enemy some -*BAD WORD*- kicking. A problem with this (aside from the complexity), however, is that it can be abused to constantly warp around everywhere.

 

below are adjustments to currently existing features:

 

balancing upgrade effectiveness:

• problem: from what it seems right now, a ship's maximum ability in a field is a multiple of its initial abilities. Example (nb: values are estimates), A warbird's initial thrust is 20, and its maximum thrust is a multiple of that, 40. Each thrust upgrade increases the thrusters by 4. A terrier's initial thrust is 10, and its maximum is a multiple of that, 20. Each thrust upgrade only increases the thrust by 2. Therefore it is more favorable to buy thrust and speed upgrades on an inherently faster ship (warbird), while it is more favorable to buy energy and recharge on an inherently stronger ship (terrier). This, to an extent, dictates which upgrades people get.
  
• solution: make the upgrade factor the same for all ships. So, for example, have a thruster upgrade increase thrusters by 3 for all ships. This will make all upgrades have the same effect on all ships.
  
• pros: ships are more customizable. There will no longer be a "best combination of upgrades" for ships.
  cons: the "role" of the different ships are less defined as they can now be practically upgraded for any use.
  

fix flashbangs:

• problem: flashbangs are too inexpensive, and immediate activation upon purchase eliminates almost all practical uses for them. People can easily abuse this by continuously buying flashbangs.
  
• solution: make flashbangs be purchased and then "stored" on a ship, just like reloads. Each ship can hold at most one flashbang. Typing "?flash" or something like that will release the flashbang, blinding everyone. With this increased use, it should naturally be more expensive. Costing 50K rather than 15K is reasonable, as flashbangs will probably be invaluable in base warfare.
  
• pros: flashbangs have a practical purpose. flashbangs are harder to abuse because of the higher cost (a continuous loss of $15K can be negligible, while a continuous loss of $50K will not be)
  cons: I suppose if someone has a lot of money to blow they can still abuse...
  

adjusting bounty increases for ship components:

• problem: certain ship components (namely upgrades and specials) provide a lot of performance for very little money. The savvy know this. Newbies do not. A newbie may spend a lot of money for a low-performance ship, while someone perceptive can spend much less money for a high-performance ship. This causes difficulty for newbies.
  
• solution: for each upgrade or special, prize a "full charge" to increase the bounty of the ship.
  
• pros: newbies have an easier time. Low-cost, high-performance ships yield less money when killing other ships, but are worth more money to be killed.
  cons: I can't think of any
  

taxing money gifts:

• problem: too easily can the rich just give money to newbies who then simply take the money and buy everything. Also, it becomes too easy to "transfer" money between accounts making tradekilling a very easy thing to do.
  
• solution: have a 25-50% "?give" tax. Example: if I give 100,000 to someone, he will only receive 50,000-75,000.
  
• pros: prevents newbies from simply buying everything with money they didn't earn. suppresses inflation. suppresses trade-killing. suppresses bouncing money in between accounts.
  cons: can be annoying (and devastating) for honest poor people trying to help each other out monetarily
  

[Dr Brain]

Experience

Items should be linked to experience, so people can't simply receive tons of money and buy everything, but need to show some skills too.

 

It's an idea, but it could be carried too far.

 

Money

Money should be split between the team, the killer should receive say 50% and the other 50% should be divided amongst the rest of the team in even shares. Experience, however should not be split - ever.

 

Another interesting idea, but has some drawbacks, such as players who simply AFK ingame to earn big bucks.

 

A cost-curve

Better items should cost a lot more, also another lot more for the amount of items you already have, go back to Mooky&Me's thread on the old forums about the details of this system.

 

Bigger items already cost more. Money will never be a determinig factor for the ultamate ship. Increasing costs only hurts newbies, the vets don't even notice a dent in their hundred thousand dollar wallets.

 

Warp Drive

This ultra expensive, huge slot amount taking device, will let you and all friendly units in a certain radius teleport to a designated spot within a certain amount of time, it's not completely precise, but who cares if you end up in an asteroid and die - it's for the hive!

 

Sorta already covered in this thread.

[Dr Brain]

Here's a quick reiteration of the most basic exponential cost curve idea:

an upgrade's cost = 1000 * 1.15 ^ (number of upgrades)

the maximum amount of upgrades per category is 10 instead of 5.

 

for the less mathematically able: the more upgrades you have, the more expensive they get.  This is just like an experience curve in most role-playing games.

 

supplemental idea:

The otherwise maximum amount of one type of upgrade is 5.  Enhancers are now used to increase the maximum amount of one type of upgrade rather than the total amount of upgrades (which are now technically unlimited). Enhancers are purchased as upgrades.  As such, they increase the "number of upgrades" counter.  Directly, this makes no immediate change on the price; however, enhancers have a profound effect on the future cost of all upgrades, since the curve is exponential.

 

supplemental idea:

add 1000*1.5 ^ (number of same type of upgrade) into the main upgrade cost formula.  Enhancers will be eliminated.  All this addition does is make it more expensive to have more of the same type of upgrade.  Unlike the enhancer idea listed above, having more of the same type of upgrade will not affect the cost of other upgrades.

 

That makes things too complicated for newbies, and money will never really be an issue. I have never liked the upgrade slot scheme, and I have some ideas of ways to replace it.

 

balancing upgrade effectiveness:

• problem: from what it seems right now, a ship's maximum ability in a field is a multiple of its initial abilities.  Example (nb: values are estimates), A warbird's initial thrust is 20, and its maximum thrust is a multiple of that, 40.  Each thrust upgrade increases the thrusters by 4.  A terrier's initial thrust is 10, and its maximum is a multiple of that, 20.  Each thrust upgrade only increases the thrust by 2.  Therefore it is more favorable to buy thrust and speed upgrades on an inherently faster ship (warbird), while it is more favorable to buy energy and recharge on an inherently stronger ship (terrier).  This, to an extent, dictates which upgrades people get.
   
   
  
• solution: make the upgrade factor the same for all ships.  So, for example, have a thruster upgrade increase thrusters by 3 for all ships.  This will make all upgrades have the same effect on all ships.
   
   
  
• pros: ships are more customizable.  There will no longer be a "best combination of upgrades" for ships.
  cons: the "role" of the different ships are less defined as they can now be practically upgraded for any use.
  

 

Thats an idea. I may end up changing the entire upgrade system if im not careful .

 

 

fix flashbangs:

• problem: flashbangs are too inexpensive, and immediate activation upon purchase eliminates almost all practical uses for them.  People can easily abuse this by continuously buying flashbangs.
   
   
  
• solution: make flashbangs be purchased and then "stored" on a ship, just like reloads.  Each ship can hold at most one flashbang.  Typing "?flash" or something like that will release the flashbang, blinding everyone.  With this increased use, it should naturally be more expensive.  Costing 50K rather than 15K is reasonable, as flashbangs will probably be invaluable in base warfare.
   
   
  
• pros: flashbangs have a practical purpose.  flashbangs are harder to abuse because of the higher cost (a continuous loss of $15K can be negligible, while a continuous loss of $50K will not be)
  cons: I suppose if someone has a lot of money to blow they can still abuse...
  

 

I will probably make FBs sector specific, and have ships carry them like reloads. I would probably set the limit at two, but that can be changed.

 

 

adjusting bounty increases for ship components:

• problem: certain ship components (namely upgrades and specials) provide a lot of performance for very little money.  The savvy know this.  Newbies do not.  A newbie may spend a lot of money for a low-performance ship, while someone perceptive can spend much less money for a high-performance ship.  This causes difficulty for newbies.
   
   
  
• solution: for each upgrade or special, prize a "full charge" to increase the bounty of the ship.
   
   
  
• pros: newbies have an easier time.  Low-cost, high-performance ships yield less money when killing other ships, but are worth more money to be killed.
  cons: I can't think of any
  

 

The root of the problem is determining the reward for killing, as it shouldn't really be based on real bounty.

 

I can probably manipulate bounty so it displays the reward rather than how many prizes the player has received (who really cares?).

 

 

taxing money gifts:

• problem: too easily can the rich just give money to newbies who then simply take the money and buy everything.  Also, it becomes too easy to "transfer" money between accounts making tradekilling a very easy thing to do.
   
   
  
• solution: have a 25-50% "?give" tax.  Example: if I give 100,000 to someone, he will only receive 50,000-75,000.
   
   
  
• pros: prevents newbies from simply buying everything with money they didn't earn.  suppresses inflation.  suppresses trade-killing.  suppresses bouncing money in between accounts.
  cons: can be annoying (and devastating) for honest poor people trying to help each other out monetarily
  

 

There is no doubt that something needs to be done, I just don't know what yet. Im not sure that removing a percentage is the best way to do it.

[Bomook]

I honestly think an exponential cost curve is good idea:

 

Hypothetically, no one will have every upgrade. (using a fixed 1000*1.21^x formula)

Having 5 upgrades will cost $7,590 ($2,590 difference from the current cost)

Having 10 upgrades will cost $27,274 ($17,274 difference from the current cost)

Having 15 upgrades will cost $78,331 ($13,331 difference from the current cost)

Having 20 upgrades will cost $210,759 ($9,241 difference from the current cost)

Having 25 upgrades will cost $554,242

Having 30 upgrades will cost $1,445,150

Having 35 upgrades will cost $3,754,937 (it took me over 3 months to make this much, so actually having 35 upgrades on a single ship will be almost impossible)

Having 40 upgrades will cost $9,749,524 (for those of you who think you can get more than 35 )

the cost difference between our current system and the proposed system aren't too big.

 

it would benefit both newbies and veterans

• Newbies, after buying 10 upgrades, hit a "plateau", in terms of their ship performance. After a period of time when the player can afford an enhancer, his ship's performance will begin increasing again, and after buying 20 upgrades, hit a peak. The ship performance and cost increase rises unsteadily, making things difficult for newbies who aren't prepared. With the new system, newbies will see a much smaller cost (e.g. the 15th upgrade with the new system will actually cost $17,450. This is much less traumatic to look at than a big $50,000 for an enhancer), which will rise steadily, so it will be pretty easy to adjust to.
  
• Veterans, generally after buying the 10slot, move onto another ship. After maxing every ship, some people get bored and just leave, since there is nothing really good left to buy. Having an exponential cost curve would technically give veterans as many upgrades they want.
  

Also, even for newbies, if someone really wanted an extra upgrade, he could save up and eventually buy it. In this way, the system is quite flexible. It will require more careful, complex planning, too, since even one upgrade will profoundly affect the cost of all of the others.

 

Most RPGs use an exponential exp. curve. Upgrades most nearly represent levels, so using an exponential cost curve for upgrades is reasonable. An actual example of the success of the proposed system is a current browser game that actually uses a system very similar to the it is TDZK, which currently has about 3000 players, (which is a lot considering the last time I played, over a year ago, the game had about half that population). Even newbies don't seem to find the exponential system they have as overly complex. The at!@#$%^&*ude in TDZK (even among wealthy veterans) values money (they can't simply just buy an unstoppable ship) and careful upgrade combinations.

 

on the other hand, I realize the change is very radical (although it's been tested, so it's unlikely to fail), and quite complex, but otherwise, I don't really see any cons. I think as long as there is a buy message saying "You have purchased 1 [ugprade type] for $[amount payed]. Your next ugprade will cost $[upgrade cost]." then people (even newbies) will be able to adapt or get used this the system much more easily. Ultimately, the new system will make newbies have an easier time getting started, and will keep veterans attached as well.

[FunkmastaD]

Wow I'm impressed by pretty much all of the ideas mentioned here even if I don't have a real say in how things happen

I'd just like to point out somethings that might be of concern to some people

 

A practically unlimited amount of upgrades incrementing in cost exponentally I think is a great idea and it gives the rich vets something to do besides hoard money and abuse with FBs etc...

Although when I find no more use for Money I'm usually giving it to the newbies so they can have more.

 

Having an active team split/share in money is a good idea in theory as long as there is someone who is able to stop/spec afkers which was mentioned below

And if you don't like to share then go solo and then your money wouldn't be split

 

Having non-abuseable flashbangs is another good idea. TOOK LONG ENOUGH!!!!!! finally my eyes can stop bleeding

 

Don't implement a taxing system on ?give

Or if you are going to anyways make it a tax on consecutive "?give"s with an increasing tax because for a lot of people who give money to help out others it would cause them to reconsider helping people out

If I were to give 25k to someone I knew who was just starting out and they only were able to get 12.5 then I would be upset since It's like me being robbed of that difference.

I know that people using 2 or more accounts pooling into 1 account isn't right but I don't believe taxing money transfers is a good way to deal with it since it would affect how generous people would be and I'd personally be less inclined to create side-games that would completely tax the -*BAD WORD*- out of me for giving out prize money

I guess the only idea I can give is a severe fine for anyone caught abusing the ?give to pool money, or people who are trade-killing for easy cash

Say....75% fine for all people involved

It's just a thought really

[Bomook]

Yeah, having a tax on transferring money probably does create more problems than it'll solve. People will avert giving money because of the tax, and few player-run events will continue to exist (many of them were fun ). Also, giving money to help out newbies will probably stop, and they will feel discouraged. People will also stop loaning each other money. Although, I can't really think of any other way to stop trade-killing and such, I'm now decided that a big money transfer tax is not a good solution.

[Dav]

we salso need to adress the flood of mony that enters the zone, last time evryone was so dam rich thay could max everything 10 times over.

 

mabye toremove some money people pay to enter events, and 50% goes into the zone, this will remove some of the mony in the zone.

 

another tuing can be to introduce fines for various rule braking and bug exploiting so people are not going to cheat.

 

finally, make the ships more expenciv initially, mabe increacing by x 10 per ship or 2 ships (depending if my basic gunner ship 1, basic bomber ship 2 etc idea is going in)

 

s0 ship 1 ship 2 = 10,000

 

3,4 = 100,000

 

5,6 = 1,000,000

 

7 = 10,000,000

 

and respectivly the attributes of the ships should be worth spendiong all that mioney

[Bomook]

Even if people get that rich, if the exponential upgrade cost curve was introduced, then instead of just maxing all of their ships and buying supers and flashbangs, they'd be able to put the money into their ships.

 

a high cost for ships is a good idea , though your values are way too high. !@#$%^&*uming all of the ships were balanced, ships 5 and 6 should cost at a most $200K. And the same goes for Ship 7. No one has even earned $10 million yet. If the capship cost too much, then newbies wouldn't be able to flag (causing 2 problems: complaining, and no compe!@#$%^&*ion for those who are flagging). Making ship costs dramatically higher makes the ship cost no longer negligible, so people will have to think about which ship they ultimately want, and find a way to earn that money.

[Wargh!!!]

my smallish idea is that your ship needs maintinance every so often, which costs cash, say, 200-500 every 5 mins of flying or so.

 

this gives pros a slight disadvantage, because they have to maintain ALL ships at once, which will end up in 1600-4000 just to repair one.

 

this will get more money 'into the fat tray, and out of your life!'

 

and if you dont repair, you see a few things starting to break off, like that much-needed repel when 30 bombs are heading for your -*BAD WORD*-.

also, energy will deplete, SLOWLY. which in turn, can reach a point where you are practically stranded, and when you die, you gain your ship back, and you are told to use a different ship for about 1 minute, if you can. if you only have one ship, matinance can apply, only to a lesser extent, and the ship repair rule (one min away from your precious lamer ship when you die )

should not apply to people with less than 5 session usage, and those with one ship.

 

possibly you could increase the cost with the more parts bought...say,

 

Base cost:

 

1/10 of the base ship cost.

 

Cost of slot upgrades of any kind:

 

1/10 of any upgrade cost.

 

Cost of repairing a killed ship

 

none for:

those with one ship.

 

Cost = base cost + all upgrades miltiplied by X which is the amount of sips owned.

 

 

 

 

Lets just say, for example,

 

i had a terrier, with 5 thrust, 5 rotation.

 

i died.

 

It would not cost anything.

 

 

if i had a terr, and a jav, with the same stats,

 

and my terr died..

 

its 1/10 of the cost to purchase ship = base cost. = lets say, it was 20k. it would be 2k to fix.

 

all slot upgrades at 1000 = cost of 100 x 2 (2 ships) = 2000 to fix.

 

all other upgrades = none = 0$

 

to fix enhancers (if we have em) all the other parts on the enhancer must be fixed as well.

 

so, one 5 slot enhancer, same rule as ships

 

costs 5k.

 

 

that sorta thing.

[Dav]

5 mions for repairs is excessive.

 

mabye for multiship ppl you rent a hanger, you buy hanger bays for your ships at a cost of say 2,000 per day per additional bay after the first free one (for you noobie 1st ship) if you dont keep up the payments, then you have your ship in the un paid for bay repossesed that wiull mean people lose alot of money from rent/ reposses and keep the amount iof money down.

 

[edit]

 

splitting kill money between team wont make any difference, polle kill and so you will make back alot of that kill money that has gone anyway.

[Guest Wargh (couldn't be bofered l]

i like the hanger idea, maybe this could improve on it.

 

 

 

you can RENT ships for 1-7 days, cap ship costs extra,

you can RENT hangers for 1-14 days, any size, wit respective prices,

You can also buy ships and hangers, but it costs MUCH MORE than renting costs.

 

lets say, i have 1k.

 

i can either BUY a wb for 1k, which will come with a free hanger, just so the newbs dont get majorly scared

 

or i can rent another ship for 7 days, for around 10-200 $ depending on the amount of days you want it.

 

BUT,

 

you also have to rent a hanger to store it in, unless you bought one.

 

if you dont have a hanger for your ships, they lose parts

 

S

L

O

W

L

Y

 

an you dont start with em... just small stuff like a thrust or somthing every 3-5 days.

 

if you run out of those upgrades, or you have none, you start to get occasional random engine-shut-downs and warps, which could represent faulty ship parts.

 

and you could get it repaired, simply, by either replacing your ship, or get another hanger...

 

if you have a large hanger that can store 2-3 ships, your upgrades can be installed very quickly, as there would be more littile worker minions in your hanger (hehe)

maybe the max time for an upgrade to take effect would be 1 min.. cause if you save up to maxx a ship then you want the upgrades to be out there quick dont you?

 

of course, that last paragraph was only a quick thought.

 

we could, always, tax ppl, split kill money, increment uprgades, but thats things ppl WILL notice, not just somthing to do with the 'plot' of this place being an RPG world.

[Dr Brain]

Actually, it's possible to make certain guns require ammo, and you have to go shopping for it every now and then.

 

That, and a few other ideas would solve the lack of continous input into a ship.

 

 

 

I doubt that I will ever implement a exponential curve system, as thats not really what I'm trying to acheive here. The lack of a sense of completion will drive people away, IMO. And once you have your ultamate ship, you have to be able to play around in it.

 

It also puts a cap on how upgraded ships can be, as with a curve system, it will be impossible for newbies to ever catch up to the vets (as the vets will still be upgrading).

[Dav]

i like the hanger idea, maybe this could improve on it.

 

 

 

you can RENT ships for 1-7 days, cap ship costs extra,

you can RENT hangers for 1-14 days, any size, wit respective prices,

You can also buy ships and hangers, but it costs MUCH MORE than renting costs.

 

lets say, i have 1k.

 

i can either BUY a wb for 1k, which will come with a free hanger, just so the newbs dont get majorly scared

 

or i can rent another ship for 7 days, for around 10-200 $ depending on the amount of days you want it.

 

BUT,

 

you also have to rent a hanger to store it in, unless you bought one.

 

if you dont have a hanger for your ships, they lose parts

 

S

L

O

W

L

Y

 

an you dont start with em... just small stuff like a thrust or somthing every 3-5 days.

 

if you run out of those upgrades, or you have none, you start to get occasional random engine-shut-downs and warps, which could represent faulty ship parts.

 

and you could get it repaired, simply, by either replacing your ship, or get another hanger...

 

if you have a large hanger that can store 2-3 ships, your upgrades can be installed very quickly, as there would be more littile worker minions in your hanger (hehe)

maybe the max time for an upgrade to take effect would be 1 min.. cause if you save up to maxx a ship then you want the upgrades to be out there quick dont you?

 

of course, that last paragraph was only a quick thought.

 

we could, always, tax ppl, split kill money, increment uprgades, but thats things ppl WILL notice, not just somthing to do with the 'plot' of this place being an RPG world.

problem with renting ships is that ppl get better abi!@#$%^&*ed cheaper, that will just mess up the whole expence making it hared and reducing money in the zone.

 

you get 1 free hanger bay so noobs can play ok

 

additional hanger bays for x per week i think is the best way, and you lose the ship if you dont pay for your hanger bays.

 

another idea, servicing, prehaps you can make it so more advanced non noob ships need to be reguarly servised or they begin to lose speed, thrust and turn, if you leav it too long that will become 0

 

you could make it so a service costs 10k and is needed once per month, if yopu have left it a wile after servicing your attributed return to normal.

 

so noobs arent screwedmake noob ships not need servicing.

[FunkmastaD]

There are some problems that might arise from having rented hangers to store ships

The people who can't be on here a lot would pretty much be confined to a noobie ship

Anyone who is reallyy good but just has no time would not like the idea of their ships being removed (Impounded) if they can't be there for a long time

1 possible solution to that is a fee to remove the ship from the hanger like renting it

there would be no time limit to storage and then people who say play all day Saturday and then have work/school during the rest of the week can still have their ships like a continued save point

The wear and tear causing ship failures idea is ok in theory as long as the failures aren't overly drastic and that they are noticable before a complete shut down

I do like the ammo idea if it is possible where a ship could have unlimited basic laser and then purchasing a set amount of bombs/mines

[Bomook]

I don't know... yes, having a maintenance cost will make things slightly more equal, as veterans will have a harder time. On the other hand, I don't think newbies will like this either, since it's still going to cost them money. (It's kinda like tax hikes today. The government spends the taxes equally for all people, and though the rich suffer from them much more, the poor still complain because they are unwilling to part with the little money that they do have.)

 

I think a reduction in gains (as opposed to flat-out penalty or cost) is better. How about several multiple-ship kill formulas?

money = [70-(number of ships owned * 5)] * [(enemy bounty + 5) / (your bounty + 5)]

 

this way, in terms of the current kill formula, newbies still technically aren't negatively affected, while in-between newbies/veterans are slightly benefited. Finally the 1337 veterans (especially those with 7 ships) will be harmed by this formula (they will make 30% less money from kills).

 

Finally, bullets should be free, while bombs and mines should be payed on a per unit basis.

I can think of 2 ways of implementing this (although whether or not they're possible to do is questionable )

• Paying a fee of say, $1000, 50 bombs/mines will be "added" to that ship. If someone has less than 50 bombs/mines but isn't completely empty, he can buy more bombs/mines, but it will bring him to exactly 50 bombs/mines again (example: someone buys bombs/mines, he now has 50 bombs/bombs, he shoots 1 bomb; now he has 49 bombs/mines, but he buys bombs/mines again, he is back at 50 bombs/bombs). The reason this should be done is so that people can't just buy like a thousand bombs/mines at one time, essentially destroying the purpose of this.
  
• Every time a bomb is fired or a mine is layed, $20 is deducted. If the person has less than $20, then bombs will be temporarily unprized.
  

Hopefully, this will make bullet-based ships more useful and prolific (decent performance, low maintenance required), whereas bombers will be more specialized (high performance, high maintenance).

[Wargh!!!]

Finally, bullets should be free, while bombs and mines should be payed on a per unit basis.

I can think of 2 ways of implementing this (although whether or not they're possible to do is questionable )

• Paying a fee of say, $1000, 50 bombs/mines will be "added" to that ship.  If someone has less than 50 bombs/mines but isn't completely empty, he can buy more bombs/mines, but it will bring him to exactly 50 bombs/mines again (example: someone buys bombs/mines, he now has 50 bombs/bombs, he shoots 1 bomb;  now he has 49 bombs/mines, but he buys bombs/mines again, he is back at 50 bombs/bombs).  The reason this should be done is so that people can't just buy like a thousand bombs/mines at one time, essentially destroying the purpose of this.
  

Hopefully, this will make bullet-based ships more useful and prolific (decent performance, low maintenance required), whereas bombers will be more specialized (high performance, high maintenance).

i like the idea of 50 bombs per 1k, and i like how its only equal to it... it would be a good deterrant for those who use the lame ships... and maybe if we tweak the price a bit higher, we could in turn make the remedy for the money problems..

 

IMO, i like your thinking.

[FunkmastaD]

Hey Mook the 50 for $1000 is a good idea and it would be stored like a magazine clip is on a gun so you can't have more than 50

The 50 should include mines so it would be 50 bombs/mines so that they can be personally used ie a strict miner would use the 50 to protect the base and the attacking bomber would s-*BAD WORD*- enemies with the 50 bombs

As an upgrade the yellow and blue bombs could be purchased at a higher price with less per unit since they would be larger because they hold a larger explosive

Specialty bombs like Shrapnel, Proximity mines and Bouncing Bombs could be purchased in a similar way at a higher cost also

This would greatly halt the insane Jav bombing problem we had last time and similar problems like it

 

The red gun would be unlimited ammo and then if it were possible the Blue and Yellow cartridges could be purchased in a similar way say 1000 rounds per clip

With increased price for increased strength

Bouncing Bullets would be done in the same manner as bombs

As would multifire

 

In the hangers additional previously purchaced ammo clips could be stored and instantly placed on your ship without wait time

 

I thought of a way to stop the people who abuse ?give without needing a tax

Unfortunatly I'm not 100% sure if this can be done at all

If all of the money transfers between ships could be logged and recorded in some way then any suspicious activity could be reviewed and then an arbiter in charge of zone finances could pm and Audit your transactions and if needed remove all money from both accounts for anyone pooling money for one account without a really good reason

[Bomook]

I like the idea of having the bomb cost increase as it is upgraded more.

each shrapnel or bomb level upgrade adds $2 to each bomb's cost

the whole thing is multiplied by 1.5 if the bombs bounce (i.e. javelin)

so getting blue bombs with level 5 shrapnel will cost $48 per bomb [ 1.5 * (20+10+2) ]. I think this would be a good counterbalance since most maxed javs don't make any more than $50 per kill anyways.

 

I still don't like the hangar idea, though. lowering the amount of money made per kill is enough, imo. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done. I've played many games that started out very fun, but over time had so many "balancing" implementations that they became management nightmares (too many things had to be taken into account when doing even the most basic actions), taking out the basic enjoyment, and at the same time lowering the population driving both bored veterans and newbies (who can't understand everything) away.

 

I'm not really for having bullets cost money to fire. With the current settings, most of the bullet-firing ships are made to spray. I think making bullets cost money would too radically change the gameplay with these ships. Higher levels bullets don't do much, nor does multifire. Making bouncing bullets cost more (about $10K) is probably all that really needs to be done.

[FunkmastaD]

See this Hanger idea could get out of hand in a hurry

Keeping it simple is the best way to do anything

Have a Hanger function as a reloading station with a full charge prized to affect your kill money also

Nothing overly complex or else there will be no real pop growth

[Dav]

i dont like the idea of paying for bullets.

 

with bombs i think you should pay 1k for 50 and then dependig on what you have bought you charge them in a diffrent way. so if you have shrap and prox you add them to the bombs bu buying those perminate upgrades and no when you buy the ammo. this alows noobs to afford bombs/mines and vets to keep well stocked. vets will prob use those 50 bombs quickly so they are still payig alot of money.

 

with the repairs idea, it could get more seervers with the more expencive ships, as vets use the more expencive ships thay will be hit harder. if its done bu time the ships out, it stops huge profit being made by afkers.

[FunkmastaD]

I still think that a constant reapair cost or hanger cost is not needed really

It could easily be done automatically when you die lose say $50 that way really good pilots won't be requiring a lot of repairs since they won't take as much damage

Another option would be to have no recharge in open space but have a prized full charge that costs you the money for repairing your ship in the hangar bay

[Wargh!!!]

i guess, but dosn't that already = a reload?

[FunkmastaD]

Well it is kinda but this would cost only half as much because it isn't portable

I forgot about reloads since I never used them before in HS

[Dav]

i never used reloades either, i think we need repairs or hangers toextract some pof that moiney from the zone, we just need a way for it io impact vets and leave the noobs alone