Recent posts by swordmonger on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Aug 14 Maintenance and Content Update

I was hoping to see new mechanics/technologies too. Also, bug fixes for the many issues we’ve reported since the beginning.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / And then it (finally) ended..

27m vs 20m, pretty sure that was the biggest battle I’ve seen yet. I just wish there was a way to filter out different hull types so we could remove the mines and see who sent real fleets and how many.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / rbp battles

I don’t think keeping top corps out with disincentives is going to work since you’ll just create a situation in which some players get a fun feature that others don’t. Instead, what I’m going for is a game in which top corps do not get bonuses for taking virtual rbps but they still have a incentive to play because they can potentially keep those bonuses away from their competition. Yes that means top corps will “always win” but it’s a win that costs lower corps nothing and gives top corps nothing. The only corps that can potentially benefit are lower corps but everyone has a reason to play and have fun with the challenge.

Keep in mind though, if there are 100 virtual rbps, then there are enough rbps for 10 level 10 corps. Even server 1 has only 5 level 10 corps, and several more level 9s, so the level 9s would probably be the benefactors but more importantly, there would be reason for level 9s to compete (i.e. to keep rbps away from other level 9 corps).

IMO, an issue with server 1 is that several of the top-10 corps are nothing but shells for alt accounts. These alt corps are generally run by one or two moderately strong players that can keep the rbps they have simply through intimidation and the fact that lowbie players can’t afford to have their fleets wiped the way strong players can. i.e. lowbie corps don’t want to take rbps, even though they almost certainly could, because losing their fleets hurts them a lot more than it hurts a moderate/strong player with 3+ alts to rebuild with. In a virtual rbp game, this problem doesn’t exist. Lowbies can feel free to attack virtual rbps with all their ships and their players can gang up on the one powerful player without fear. My hope is, this would allow lowbies with active players to have the rbp bonuses they deserve and reduce the advantage of the “cheating” going on with top level alt corps. It may also give alt corps a reason to actually bring in fresh recruits in place of their alts.

All that said, the benefit and the fun factor are entirely dependent on the way the game is setup. IGG has a long track record of giving already strong players all the advantages, so I can’t imagine they’d implement this in the way I would like to see. Still, hope springs eternal ;)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / rbp battles

I would have posted in the Cool ideas thread but it was getting pretty long already. Lots of good ideas there tho, I hope IGG reads it.

I have an idea that’s been brewing awhile too. No one ever fights over RBPs anymore. Why? because there are only enough rbps for about 8 level 10 corps, and all the top-10 corps snap them up and hold them forever so that lower corps have no chance to keep even one (at least on server 1 where top corps are very powerful and stable now).

So, i was thinking, how about an arena type game where corps compete for virtual rbps? Well, not really rbps, but some kind of planet that can be captured. This could be maybe a week long or month long event during which corps compete to take and keep as many of these planets as they can. Battles would be fought with “virtual” ships, so no perma death. Like IGL.

Here’s the twist tho, corps that own one of these virtual rbps at the end and don’t already own a full set of real rbps will get an rbp bonus equivalent to those planets for the next week. That is, if ACMECorp owns 2 rbps, and manages to take and hold 2 virtual rbps, they’ll get the bonus of 4 rbs for the next week. Another example, if ELITECorp owns 10 rbps, and holds 5 virtual rbps, they’ll still only get the max of 10 rbp bonus.

The important thing is not to reward established corps, what I hope is that this would give lowbies a way to challenge the established players and get rewards for doing so. I hope this would attract new players to all servers, but especially the older ones where new players are at a big disadvantage at first.

I think a big problem with this game in later stages is that big established players are rarely challenged, even by other big players, because it’s just too easy to truce all the time, and many players just don’t want to lose their fleets because it means weeks of rebuilding. This way, big players can challenge each other and fight off lower players without perma death.

Hmm, so basically, I’ve just described GO2 without perma-death and rbps that reset every week/month. Lol, oh well, I still think it would be fun.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate Multiplayer Games / [Andromeda5] BUG!

I found a tier 4 laser with a -1000 cooldown bonus. I took it to the dock and tried upgrading it and lowering it’s cooldown even more. However, while it charged me money and “upgraded” the weapon, the cooldown value did not go below 500.

I’m told cooldowns can’t go below 500 on purpose, yet the upgrader took my money and took up upgrade slots even though my weapon isn’t any better.

The game needs to prevent the user from upgrading a stat that can’t be upgraded like this. Please fix!

 

Topic: Galaxy Online / Oct 15 Content Update: Tesla Merging

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Unconfirmed-Godmars system introduced

Well event hull bps sometimes come as bound and sometimes unbound. This creates two questions that are important to anyone spending MP in this game.
1 – Can we use the bound versions to make these new hulls? If not, we should avoid those events.

2 – Can we use some bound and some unbound together? If not, we need to be careful to acquire only bps of one or the other.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Oct 15 Content Update: Tesla Merging

Can we get confirmation on whether or not we can use bound event bps to make the new bp?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Unconfirmed-Godmars system introduced

Can we get confirmation on whether or not bound ship bps can be used?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / new commander

We need a new commander. Keeping in line with recent additions like Venus I think it’s time venerable old Uranus got some love.

Legendary Uranus
Special Ability: Toxic Cloud – Within 15 spaces, reduces enemy hull/shields by 15% per round. Dissipates with greater distance, so 15% within 5 spaces, 10% within 10 spaces and 5% within 15 spaces.

Further to this, I think we need a new divine.
Divine Black Hole Punishers – Panis and Uranus
Special Ability: Black Hole Donkey Punch – Uranus’ ability + Panis’ ability.

Clearly this is a winner, please vote up!

XD

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Skill Commanders

These suggestions are based on the assumption the player would want to use these with sbw since they provide interception. None of these would be A-list divines, but they’d give Panis a reason to exist other than for the jokes.

Super Carriers Panis + Hellen – high interception rate + fast reload, would make a decent sbw fleet imo.

Crushing Defeat Panis + Raslin – both proc on Elec so 2x proc rate of either alone. Interception + reduce enemy power 50%. With double proc rate this could be a decent tank.

Reflector Shields Panis + Joseph – both proc on Elec so 2x proc rate. Interception + 20% reflection. With the double proc rate it could be a good troll fleet.

Deflector Shields Panis + Sylla – Elec+Dodge. Interception + 15% damage reduction + spread damage. Really a very useless divine. Cheap tank maybe.

Premium Jet Fuel Panis + Lynn – Lynn component always procs, panis procs on elec. Interception + +10% attack per space moved. Meh. Gives Panis and Lynn some small reason to exist.

Ultimate Evasion Panis + Bart – Would be the ultimate Bart divine if it procs on Elec alone and has 1.5-2x proc rate. Less exciting would be proc on Elec+Speed like other bart divines. Could be a very decent sbw troll fleet.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / July 11 Server Maintenance

+1

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / A question to IGG Games, please answer

@Silentwoe

Ok, read the whole thread because you missed the fact that we are comparing Facebook to Kong servers.

Yes, IGG can give free mp on Kong servers but they have little incentive to do so because the Kong financial model rewards them the most for milking WWs. Contrasted with Facebook where they do have a large incentive to increase the number of unique players. Giving free MP reduces the amount of money WWs need to spend, while increasing the f2p player base by attracting players that aren’t going to spend real money. Therefore, giving free MP on Kong would reduce the money they make and a company who’s purpose is to make money will not do that.

Even so, if the number of WWs dropped significantly, then IGG would have an incentive to give free MP even on Kong because they would need to attract new WWs. So yes, some day IGG may give free MP but it isn’t going to happen just because you ask. It will happen when it makes financial sense for them to do so.

TL;DR Sorry but in the real world, companies only do what makes them the most money.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / A question to IGG Games, please answer

Originally posted by Silentwoe:

swordmonder… also igg might not be in position to give free kreds… but it is in position to give out mall points. Kong can not stop IGG if IGG simply decided to give each player, for example, 1mp a week for loyalty.

This was the exact question I was answering. “Why doesn’t IGG give out free mp?”. The reason is put succinctly in my TL;DR above.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / A question to IGG Games, please answer

Follow up to that.

Why can you watch videos for free MP on Facebook?

That’s because Facebook has a different financial model. Facebook gets paid by advertising revenue. In order for Facebook to make money, they must publish games that bring in lots and lots of players to watch the advertising on their site. This means that Facebook gets paid regardless of how much money players spend on in-game credits. I believe IGG also gets a small cut of the advertising revenue, based on how many players are visiting the site. However, this cut is very very small so they must have very very many players to make it worthwhile.

Since the Facebook financial model rewards IGG for the number of unique players, IGG has financial incentive to increase it’s player base. Thus, allowing f2p to get at least some free MP and thereby more easily compete with WWs is in IGGs financial interest.

TL;DR Facebook has a financial model that rewards IGG for more players. Kong has a financial model that rewards IGG for milking WWs.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / A question to IGG Games, please answer

@MordredofFairy

Kongregate is a game publisher, they own the rights to the Kong site. Any games companies that publish a game on Kong are therefore required to follow Kongs rules. Since Kong needs to make money, their first and foremost rule is that players must buy in game credits by first buying Kong points. Kong takes a cut of the money spent on Kreds, then gives the rest to the game owner on which you spend those Kreds. This way, both Kong and the game developer get paid.

IGG is not in a position to give you free Kreds, and Kong prevents IGG from letting you buy MP without Kreds. You might ask, well how come IGG can’t put up an advertising video I can watch to get “free” MP without Kreds? That’s because doing so violates Kongs rules, since IGG would be making money from the video without providing a cut of the proceeds to Kong. i.e. only IGG would have made money, and Kong would be broke.

IGG can give you MP for free in the game as long as no real-world money is involved since then Kong is not entitled to any cut. However, doing this would mean IGG doesn’t make any money either, so why would they be interested in it? <— that’s a rhetorical question, they aren’t interested in it ;)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / A question to IGG Games, please answer

because IGG doesn’t own Kongregate. If you want to know why you can’t get Kreds (needed to buy MP) then you should as Kong, not IGG.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Exodus Review: Inferior Tank, Waste of Money

eeeh are you sure that the 15% negation is calculated as 0.85*damage? Shelix has calculated negation values, not damage reduction. He’s multiplying the negation value of the ships by 1.15 to simulate 15% increase in negation, not 15% decrease in damage.

If you can prove that LW reduces damage 15%, rather than increases negation 15%, then your math would be correct and shelix’s would be wrong. Until then, I’m satisfied Shelix has his math right, at least with the assumptions he has clearly stated.

Perhaps you need to read more carefully before saying something is ‘wrong’?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Exodus Review: Inferior Tank, Waste of Money

If you want numbers specifically for heat weapons, why don’t you do them? I’d be interested to see what the actual numbers are.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Exodus Review: Inferior Tank, Waste of Money

eh, a more accurate summary is, LW is better than Exodus against the most common weapon configuration used currently (mostly magnetics). Further, when the less common configurations are considered, LW is still about as good as Exodus. Only in the case where the opponent is using Kinetic sb weapons does the Exodus clearly fare better than LWs. Therefore, until kinetic sbw become more common, LW >> Exodus.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Championship Matching needs tweaking

I almost wonder if there should be an elective option for players to join an “elite” room or something. You’d have to have commanders of at least 5* or more perhaps? With bigger risk, the rewards would also have to be bigger though, since why join the elite room if you can already win the regular ones…

Just a thought.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Server Maintenance - Galaxy Championships Goes Online

Let’s be honest, killing a 9* DFA should really just end the fight right there and award all the internets to the mofo that killed it. Has a 9* DFA even been killed in PvP yet?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Server Maintenance & Content Update - Ship Enhancements

^

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Convert to Card

As I see it, the problem with sealing cards is that it’s inherently “unfair”. The player has already paid a fee to buy the card, thus requiring MP to seal it again is a form of double taxation. This makes more money for IGG, but in turn sours the relationship with customers leading to poor ratings followed by fewer and fewer positive referals to friends (i.e. the game slowly dies as everyone who joins immediately gets the impression the game is unliked and is dying).

I think Utahdingo and Sancus are onto something here. I don’t like the idea of two separate ways to lock/unlock cards but i think a badge cost at level 50 is a good way to increase the time and effort required. If you allow a commander to be sealed at level 50 for a badge cost:

1 – There is still a strong incentive for WWs to spend money on sealing cards to get ahead quickly.

2 – It encourages players to stay with the game longer by making the sealing process into a challenge instead of an unavoidable tax.

3 – IGG gets a better reputation by listening to it’s players, which is a win for everyone since we all want the game to have a thriving community of players that love the game and want to tell their friends how great it is.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Feature Suggestion

@wainaa

Honestly, I don’t think tanking is a big problem. Some players may try it but they’ll still end up getting destroyed by higher level players sometimes. Even if they do manage to force a 30 round timeout on a frequent basis, isn’t that just more reason to have a surrender option?

@dgarcia182

That could work but I’d also like the option of surrendering without requiring the opponent’s permission. If I want to just quit, I should be able to just quit. Why give the opponent the option of screwing with you by preventing you from leaving?