Discussion Space Age Titan

[Pericles the Lion]

You are saying about rewards for fighting. Get them away, we dont need them, we are not playing for them. I am talking about rewards at the end for taking place in GB tournament.... Jesus Christ, basic reading skill....

You seem incapable of viewing GBG through any lens other than your own. I can assure you that not everyone shares your views regarding why they participate, or don't, in GBG. At present, I do it for the advancement rewards. Until INNO raises the L100 limit I could not care less about the end-of-season rewards. If a new limit is set, I will only care about the EOS rewards until the new limit is reached.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

Until INNO raises the L100 limit I could not care less about the end-of-season rewards.

thats my point !!!
rebalance reward system !!! Change ending rewards so they are the biggest reason to play and compete!!!

 

[DEADP00L]

You seem incapable of viewing GBG through any lens other than your own.

It is above all either his lack of discernment or his bad faith.
The big guilds or pro guilds as some call them, don't want the 8 strongest against each other (they would exhaust GbG after GbG), they don't want to have 7 small guilds in front either (not enough fight to satisfy their greed), they just want to be 2 strong with 6 weak to cultivate without wondering how the 6 weak can act!
Weak guilds ask, for their part, to be opposed only by group strength.
This is why by simplifying the discussion, the greedy and the weak will never be able to agree and that this discussion is only a surge of wickedness.

 

[angelgail]

what dose GBG have to do with

Space Age Titan ?​

 

[Kronan]

I think we need to be respectful to our friends looking for Titan ERA information, and not hijack this topic from their also noble cause

While it's easy to see the pervasive nature of our community frustration (and plight) in regard to multiple game venues, we should be sensitive about that,

I apologize to the "seeking-Titan information" members, I didn't expect my earlier example of mutualism around other venue struggles or even mentioning GbG - means it was OK to move that rabid debate here, or possibly get a few more off-topic comments.

It's best to steer this topic back to the TITAN cause - so I do hope that can return.

If anything - this demonstrates there are zealots in many place for our game

 

[Grzechu Junior]

The big guilds or pro guilds as some call them, don't want the 8 strongest against each other (they would exhaust GbG after GbG), they don't want to have 7 small guilds in front either (not enough fight to satisfy their greed), they just want to be 2 strong with 6 weak to cultivate without wondering how the 6 weak can act!

Its not true. Trully top guild whant 8 hard guilds on map. It is your opinion that we dont want. We really want, but want also a reason to fight. Cuz the reward for winning GB is well, a JOKE.

 

[xivarmy]

Its not true. Trully top guild whant 8 hard guilds on map. It is your opinion that we dont want. We really want, but want also a reason to fight. Cuz the reward for winning GB is well, a JOKE.

The problem is that there probably isn't 8 guilds on a single server that agree with that. There definitely are *truly top* guilds that would love a good fight. But probably no more than 4 on your average server. Some servers it might be 1.

I do agree that a transfer of rewards from fights to result would be a positive towards breaking up the farming co-ops.

But I also agree with those arguing with you that some sort of "catch-up advantage" to let the guilds on the outside break in more easily without agreements is probably needed as well to keep things interesting because there's a lack of parity amongst the upper ranks that you can't really see under the current meta but I'm quite sure is still there - i.e. in GvG this was the really low siege cost for your first siege vs higher siege costs when you held a lot of land. This led to the "serious" GvG guilds minimizing their landing zone exposure. While the more casual guilds had the ability to fight over something.

There's a lot of ways it could go in GBG (asymmetrical timers, asymmetrical advances required, building slots in HQ, escalating building costs the more you hold, and at the very least ending "free fights" for those in control).

It would also be wise to slow down movement near the top of GBG rankings for matchmaking purposes shifting a good number of guilds down a league or two to use the full range of MMR better. Many suggestions along this vein are oversimplified - this is not a simple task at all. But imo you shouldn't go straight from a platinum round to a max-diamond ; there should be a stop in low-diamond first no matter what. One option for this is MMR-decay that needs to be overcome from your result ; this could possibly be combined with removing the MMR-cap so that the "top group" gets a little more stable and separated from the "new to diamond" guilds.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

But I also agree with those arguing with you that some sort of "catch-up advantage" to let the guilds on the outside break in more easily without agreements is probably needed as well to keep things interesting because there's a lack of parity amongst the upper ranks that you can't really see under the current meta but I'm quite sure is still there - i.e. in GvG this was the really low siege cost for your first siege vs higher siege costs when you held a lot of land. This led to the "serious" GvG guilds minimizing their landing zone exposure. While the more casual guilds had the ability to fight over something.

its just balance problem that as you say, only 8 guilds for server are realy top. Put them in one torunament
and rest let fight on their level.

It would also be wise to slow down movement near the top of GBG rankings for matchmaking purposes shifting a good number of guilds down a league or two to use the full range of MMR better.

exactly.

 

[xivarmy]

its just balance problem that as you say, only 8 guilds for server are realy top. Put them in one torunament

No, I said *less than 8* are really top - and on some servers maybe only 1 Even with the *best 8*, some sort of catch-up advantage needs to be in place to make the round interesting. And make it so guilds 5 through 8 don't start trying to avoid being in the group in the first place

 

[Grzechu Junior]

No, I said *less than 8* are really top - and on some servers maybe only 1 Even with the *best 8*, some sort of catch-up advantage needs to be in place to make the round interesting. And make it so guilds 5 through 8 don't start trying to avoid being in the group in the first place

so agai nthe problem "oh no we are to weak, and they are to strong, help us.

The difference between "top" and rest is so big that it is impossible to catch i up. In fact it is not needed to balance. Its they decision to be weak. Top guild were collecting most active players for years and now they have profits.

 

[xivarmy]

so agai nthe problem "oh no we are to weak, and they are to strong, help us.

The difference between "top" and rest is so big that it is impossible to catch i up. In fact it is not needed to balance. Its they decision to be weak. Top guild were collecting most active players for years and now they have profits.

The point is to have a successful feature. A feature where more and more of the server just ignores it exists *is not* successful.

If you want better competition, more top guilds, you need a feature that invites everyone to play and do their best. In the process some of those guilds will become stronger - and may be your new competition. If instead they drift their way to diamond, hit a wall where they can't compete, and it's not even close, or fun. Then they start playing less, or moving to already-strong guilds. *Not* making their guild stronger so they can do a little better.

This is the point of "catch up advantage". To make sure that everyone - in every group - feels that if they were just a little stronger, it'd make a difference to their outcomes. Sitting beached and needing 4 times your current firepower to get out and do *anything* is not conducive to this.

The strongest will still be the strongest. They just might have to work a little harder because the weaker guilds that get paired with them (whether that's #8 or #40), have a better shot to stir things up. It would certainly help the situation if it was #8 - the helping hand wouldn't need to be as strong. But some sort of assist towards the weak and suppressed is going to be beneficial for the health of the feature no matter what. There isn't the kind of parity amongst guilds to have interesting rounds the way you envision.

 

[mcbluefire]

The topic is

Space Age Titan​

please stop GbG discussion here - plenty of room for that on the nearly 300 page thread.

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

The topic is

Space Age Titan​

please stop GbG discussion here - plenty of room for that on the nearly 300 page thread.

That no leadership members will ever bother to read....

 

[Velvet Thunder]

This is a reminder to everyone - refrain from GBG related posts on this thread and direct them to the threads already created for this purpose. Any further GBG posts will be considered off topic and deleted. Warning points will also be issued.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

Btw it is sick that we have february ano 0 spoilers about space age titan
probably they are slowing down to one age for a 2 years, not one every year ;<
sad

 

[-Alin-]

Btw it is sick that we have february ano 0 spoilers about space age titan
probably they are slowing down to one age for a 2 years, not one every year ;<
sad

Most probably it will get out this year, but at the end of Q3 to Q4, they delayed things and focused mostly on new things, like GE:V, 3 more events in advance than usual, they even delayed the changes on Guild Perks, nothing about it since, not to mention they postponed even GbG nerfings and changes to it untill the end of the year for both beta or live and they will revisit it later.
So most probably after they complete their new events and GE:V they will begin the work on the new age and decide what to do about it, since people complained a lot it doesn't give literally nothing new other than graphics, expansions, goods and units...

 

[Grzechu Junior]

1. events i thin it is normal strategy.
GE V lvl is a joke, i mean it just adding 1 new relict, 16 new conflicts, few buildings...

Guild Perks - didnt know they were reworking? Can you say where they said about it
Same with GB, where thay said thay will say it later? THe last info i saw was that they will say sth in this year w/o specific time
(thanks in advance for links if you send me some)

since people complained a lot it doesn't give literally nothing new other than graphics, expansions, goods and units...

and with this, well every new age is the same as before so i dont see this as a reason to change anything because it is changing the game w/o specific resason. But will see what they come up with

 

[xivarmy]

and with this, well every new age is the same as before so i dont see this as a reason to change anything because it is changing the game w/o specific resason. But will see what they come up with

If they kept up with the standards they had set for a new age, there'd be a case for "what more do you expect in a new age", but:

- no new abilities on units in a long while. Keen Eye restricts the amount of "different" abilities on a unit to 1 and lacks much flavor anymore since we've had it on every unit since mars. I was excited about it then. Now it's bland. OF was the last time they tried creating new unit abilities other than Keen Eye. And in the latest rendition of units they even kept the movement & range stats on most of the units the same they were so lazy about the copy paste! Just upped the base attack/defense a little and slapped on some of the "greatest-hit" abilities on the units. The only unit they *did* change in movement/range was a nerf to the light unit that wasn't even used by most people in Venus anyways.
- they could've at least increased the ore production from map so that optimizing the colony around goods was a thing if desired - like it was in mars ; but hasn't been in AB+. Since Asteroid Belt, the number of goods buildings you can run is limited by ore anyways, so you lose the "no life support, max goods" setup, as well as even any desire to "squeeze just 1 more goods building in with life support". They knocked it out of the park for a new feature in Mars. Took away its intrigue in AB. And never gave it back.
- only 1 GB per age instead of 2 since SAAB ; which puts a lot of pressure on it for people who that's what they're looking for in a new age - and it's largely come up short the last 2. Flying Island is largely panned - might be a bit better than its rep for new players, but "incidents in settlements while having nothing to do with actually playing settlements" also lacks much in the creativity department. AI Core is mostly built as "yet another treasury great building" - but it could've at least had its unique feature balanced to be more interesting than a short-lived bonus in AF/OF. i.e. to work on map deposits, and make those copy-paste colonies more interesting. Or to have a much higher charge limit (or no charge limit) so that it could work with synthesizers in a meaningful way for those rushing space ages. If they're going to stick to this 1 GB per age model they could at least be responsive to feedback and make it an "interesting" one building.
- while recurring quest changes haven't always been a thing, they had been in AF+. Until SAAB. Since then it's largely been copy-paste. With a set of quests that's largely viewed as too long (primarily because there's none of them you can DQ yourself from like you could in earlier ages) and comprising some that are absolutely awful to complete (i.e. requiring you to pay more goods than even a high level CF *might* give you back for completing the quest). Especially now that they've added the abort limit they could at least restrict the quests to ones that *someone* wants to do - and change them up a little again for some variety so different strategies might be worth thinking about.

Common theme: After SAAB, they stopped trying, and it shows.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

- they could've at least increased the ore production from map so that optimizing the colony around goods was a thing if desired - like it was in mars ; but hasn't been in AB+. Since Asteroid Belt, the number of goods buildings you can run is limited by ore anyways, so you lose the "no life support, max goods" setup, as well as even any desire to "squeeze just 1 more goods building in with life support". They knocked it out of the park for a new feature in Mars. Took away its intrigue in AB. And never gave it back.

What?
I have max good building limited by "people" on Jupiter.
And i am always coming for "0" with production. - 2-3 production a day for 8 hr. Never had problem with ore.
i have 12 good building in colony.

 

[xivarmy]

What?
I have max good building limited by "people" on Jupiter.
And i am always coming for "0" with production. - 2-3 production a day for 8 hr. Never had problem with ore.
i have 12 good building in colony.

Jupiter:

Space Limited you should be able to fit ~15 Goods Buildings on Jupiter Colony with zero life support. *Might* have to give up one of them for credits.
With full life support it drops to ~10-11 Goods Buildings depending on which building (the higher pop small ones get hit harder by needing more pop and life support). Again possibly giving one up for better credits.

Goods buildings able to be ran at constant 4/8 hr cycles 24 hours a day with max ore (=~691/day) are 11.5 (i.e. getting on every time a fight is ready on all deposits).

With a more "reasonable" 8 hour frequency of map fights (i.e. when you get on to collect your goods buildings you also run your fights) on all deposits it drops to ~570 a day or 9.5 buildings.

With a forgiving 2x8 hr + 1x4 hr schedule on deposits and goods buildings it's ~517 ore/day for 10.3 goods buildings that can be powered.

With a 1x24 hr schedule on deposits and goods buildings it's ~414 ore/day for 10.3 goods buildings that can be powered.

This is in general somewhere between very tight in the fully supported situation to a small excess (if you're doing all the fights possible).

---

Mars Comparison:

Space Limited you should be able to fit ~21 Goods Buildings without life support. (note that goods buildings make half the goods and require ~75% of the ore to run compared to SAAB+)

With full life support you should be able to fit ~12-13 Goods Buildings.

Full on no-life mining can yield 617 Ore per day, enough to run 13.7 Goods Buildings on 3x8 hr.

3x8hr mining & collecting can yield 530 Ore per day, enough to run 11.8 Goods Buildings.

2x8+4 hr mining & collecting can yield 467 Ore pre day, enough to run 12.3 Goods Buildings.

1x24 hr mining + collecting is ~346 Ore, enough to run 11.5 Goods Buildings.

---

The difference is not as large as I remember it; I was on the 12 goods buildings in Mars (I didn't have the 4x4 goods boosts to potentially fit 13) and felt like ore was coming out my ears. But I guess it doesn't necessarily need a *large* excess to feel like that.

The ratio of extra goods buildings you *could* fit without life support *is* higher in mars (about 75% more without life support instead of 50% more in SAJM).

And where I did see some peoples 18+ Goods Building layouts in Mars I just took their assurance that ore wasn't a problem for them like that (but looking at the numbers now I figure probably they had built up a large ore surplus before switching to it and were just gradually wearing it down).

---

This isn't a complaint about how much the colonies make - because the SAAB+ goods buildings put out twice the goods of the mars ones and thus easily exceed the mars colony in productivity with slightly less goods buildings. Just designing a colony layout for them seems like less of a fun puzzle and more an exercise in just slapping some stuff down and calling it good enough Perhaps the reason for that impression is less about ore specifically though