2022-01-13 FYI

[Deantwo]

A suggestion was proposed that new empires must be purchased for a one-time cost, to discourage the creation of excess empires. The purchaser would be the emperor.

Some might cry "pay to win". I don't know if it would make that much difference.

It would certainly cut down on the number of different empires.

I actually like this idea. So like the ability to create an empire is a one-time purchase for your account. Makes more sense than your old idea of having two account types.

The emperor avatar would likely have to be locked to the empire once it is created though, and if the emperor is avatar is deleted the empire it is tied to be dissolved and surrendered to pirates. Then the player can make a new emperor avatar on the account with a new empire.

It likely won't solve a lot of issues, but it does make that less troublesome if people have to spend money to cheat like that. Looking forward to hear what the others say to that proposal.

[Haxus]

Or is it supposed to protect each and every unit?

Every unit is protected. Even ramming them won't make them move.

Safe harbor protection is a great idea. That could be within the orbital space of any world hosting an empire city. Then there is mutual protection over worlds that host cities from multiple empires and stations are generally protected, except those harvester stations out there, hehe, or the ones trying to block the intergalactic wormholes.

[Haxus]

Makes more sense than your old idea of having two account types.

I've toyed with that idea for years and I never come away liking it. It was part of the original design plan.

I think an empire that has been purchased would persist just like empires do now. They go away when there are no more players who are members.

It wouldn't have to be tied to any particular avatar. People like to change those things around with as much freedom as possible. Empires can't be stolen. Emperors can't be overthrown.

I also don't think an account or avatar should be limited to how many empires it can purchase. It's not about the money. Personally, I would prefer the flexibility but that's just me.

[Deantwo]

I think an empire that has been purchased would persist just like empires do now. They go away when there are no more players who are members.

It wouldn't have to be tied to any particular avatar. People like to change those things around with as much freedom as possible.

That is true. Just makes it slightly problematic if all players accidentally leave the empire then. So the empire at should belong to an account somehow, and that account should probably be allowed to create a new one if the old one vanishes.

I am not sure what would make the most sense or what is easiest from a development point of view. Just know that from the customer point of view it would be nice if we can be confident that we won't lose what we bought to tiny mistakes.

[pip12345]

What if the "right" to create a new empire is purchased for a set amount of time. Like you have the ability to create a new empire for 30 days. This way if you accidentally leave it while learning the game you can create a new one.

[Haxus]

it would be nice if we can be confident that we won't lose what we bought to tiny mistakes

if you accidentally leave it while learning the game you can create a new one

Empty empires are removed once per day.

I will enable the founding player of an empire to rejoin that empire with any avatar if it has no emperor. That avatar will then assume the role of emperor.

Has anyone ever "lost" an empire by mistake?

[Vivalas]

I've been thinking about this and while I don't have an exact solution at the moment, I think another way to solve the problem of people getting wiped (on top of the noncombatant thing) is to incentivize vassalizing over wiping. More bonuses for the liege (extra officers?), perhaps the addition of penalties to your empire for wanton aggression. Players should still have full agency over their decisions and actions but the game becomes vastly more fun when it's a group of players fighting another large group of players in large galaxy-spanning conflict as opposed to just one group of players curb-stomping everyone else, which can happen in a full unrestricted PvP environment.

[Zensras]

Oh shit.

Time to get blamed once again *shrug* Sieg syndicate I guess.

By the way haxus, Any idea when Starship will get the save bug fixed? I know Phoenix had put in a bug report about it several months back but nobody knew if you were actively checking emails.

[Haxus]

The world conquest system does not require civilian buildings to be damaged or destroyed at all. You only have to destroy the military buildings then you can claim the entire world and all of its cities.

Taking the city intact is much easier than destroying and rebuilding it. As it should be.

Someone would only wipe a city to be malicious or because of some silly scorched earth policy.

[Haxus]

Any idea when Starship will get the save bug fixed?

It will be fixed in the next update. Should be before the end of February.