Increase XP from building planets

[N.ator]

Hugh cant build planets without cash, nor could he stock them. Building unstocked planets would be the best way to get yourself blown up ever.

Read the post above yours it should answer this again.

No, it doesnt, Hugh does not trade for the money, build the planets, trade for goods, and stock the planets by himself. He does a crap load of work and incredibly selflessly but he still cant do it on his own. Its just not possible to build a galaxy solo, one planet maybe but it would be an incredible amount of work and most of the game to reach a SINGLE fully stocked 70. Thats assuming nobody ever attacked it or podded the owner.

i agree. impossible. yes you buy goods for the planet but most of the time its only a few lozy x and out of building a lvl 70 planet you are probably gaining only 5k from actually uying goods.

[JettJackson]

Hugh cant build planets without cash, nor could he stock them. Building unstocked planets would be the best way to get yourself blown up ever.

Read the post above yours it should answer this again.

No, it doesnt, Hugh does not trade for the money, build the planets, trade for goods, and stock the planets by himself. He does a crap load of work and incredibly selflessly but he still cant do it on his own. Its just not possible to build a galaxy solo, one planet maybe but it would be an incredible amount of work and most of the game to reach a SINGLE fully stocked 70. Thats assuming nobody ever attacked it or podded the owner.

Hugh also is fine with the 10k per planet change from 0 that it originally was. The whole point is that we are at the middle ground solution right now which is a good compromise, there is no reason to make it 20k other than the same 3 or so people saying that they want it with 0 reasoning. People need to realize this was 0 exp just a couple games ago to build planets and to get greedy and want more for the same amount of work is just unbelievable.

[the570z]

Reasoning has been stated and ignored by all but page who dismissed it based on greedy reasons for building planets is bad.

Again the reasoning is, this time in a helpful bullet point format
1. not enough people build planets.
2. In smaller or non(for lack of a better word) top tier alliances nobody builds planets at all.
3. This lack of activity hurts the game.
4. Many of the more active players in non top tier or small alliances, are xp * insert derogatory term for many prostitutes here*.
5. Letting them get their xp while building planets for the rest of the team makes them involuntary team players.
6. More alliances with planet gals= more alliances able to op each other.
7. More ops= more active players
8. More active players=SMR is better

[JettJackson]

Reasoning has been stated and ignored by all but page who dismissed it based on greedy reasons for building planets is bad.

Again the reasoning is, this time in a helpful bullet point format
1. not enough people build planets.
2. In smaller or non(for lack of a better word) top tier alliances nobody builds planets at all.
3. This lack of activity hurts the game.
4. Many of the more active players in non top tier or small alliances, are xp * insert derogatory term for many prostitutes here*.
5. Letting them get their xp while building planets for the rest of the team makes them involuntary team players.
6. More alliances with planet gals= more alliances able to op each other.
7. More ops= more active players
8. More active players=SMR is better

Again with talking down to everyone who disagrees with you and ignoring all the opposing facts that have been presented to you. Honestly the way these posts have been its either you want it to change or else everyone else is idiots. No offense but that doesn't get things worked out in your favor more often than not.

Furthermore lets go point by point

1. Not enough people play the game the playerbase is low. If it was high this wouldn't even be an issue, which i stated this fact already.
2. Some people might not want to build planets. There is no requirement of alliances holding planets. I believe your alliance leader proved this a few games back by hitting from fed without owning a planet.
3. Sure it does but again lack of players in general is the issue here.
4. See #2.
5. People are team members and helpers in many alliances if not they are dead weight and get booted, this has nothing to do with planets.
6-8. See #1 and #2

[the570z]

Again with talking down to everyone who disagrees with you and ignoring all the opposing facts that have been presented to you. Honestly the way these posts have been its either you want it to change or else everyone else is idiots. No offense but that doesn't get things worked out in your favor more often than not.

Hmm, I gotta hand it to you that strategy sounds awfully familiar, I wonder if somebody in this thread has been using it recently...

there is no reason to make it 20k other than the same 3 or so people saying that they want it with 0 reasoning.

^^ was this facts? it smells a bit like opinion^^

Do I really need to quote all the posts ive made with the reasoning behind the suggestion, including the OP... Perchance you would care to enlighten us with these mystical facts you speak of? I am afraid you seem to be the only one that has seen them.

[JettJackson]

Again with talking down to everyone who disagrees with you and ignoring all the opposing facts that have been presented to you. Honestly the way these posts have been its either you want it to change or else everyone else is idiots. No offense but that doesn't get things worked out in your favor more often than not.

Hmm, I gotta hand it to you that strategy sounds awfully familiar, I wonder if somebody in this thread has been using it recently...

there is no reason to make it 20k other than the same 3 or so people saying that they want it with 0 reasoning.

^^ was this facts? it smells a bit like opinion^^

Do I really need to quote all the posts ive made with the reasoning behind the suggestion, including the OP... Perchance you would care to enlighten us with these mystical facts you speak of? I am afraid you seem to be the only one that has seen them.

The fact it was 0 exp before and is 10800 now per planet is plenty of evidence to prove this middle ground is just fine where we are at right now.

[the570z]

Ahh, see now we has a discussion, nice ninja edit btw.

Correct me if I am wrong but your main point seems to be that the playerbase is too small.

I would agree 100% in a large enough pond, there is plenty of people to do these tasks without any incentives. However as you so vehemently stated, we do not have a very big pond any more. Would you agree that games with alliances half-heartedly opping from fed and pretty much a lack of action are quite boring?

If so would you then agree then that we should attempt to increase activity in the remaining players? As we cannot force more people to play, making the game more interesting for those left would seem to be the best option we directly control. (you can agree with this without agreeing to any of the methods I have suggested btw)

[the570z]

I cannot argue that the xp from building planets has been increased to 10800 from 0. However I can point out that it has had zero effect on planet building. Hugh is pretty much still the only cat to do it. I believe the idea was quite solid but the amount missed its target, thus the suggestion that increasing that amount may have the desired effect of spurring more planet building. As currently the amount of xp given for planet builds is a pittance and has zero effect on gameplay.

[JettJackson]

Ahh, see now we has a discussion, nice ninja edit btw.

Correct me if I am wrong but your main point seems to be that the playerbase is too small.

I would agree 100% in a large enough pond, there is plenty of people to do these tasks without any incentives. However as you so vehemently stated, we do not have a very big pond any more. Would you agree that games with alliances half-heartedly opping from fed and pretty much a lack of action are quite boring?

If so would you then agree then that we should attempt to increase activity in the remaining players? As we cannot force more people to play, making the game more interesting for those left would seem to be the best option we directly control. (you can agree with this without agreeing to any of the methods I have suggested btw)

This reasoning has nothing to do with the planets having more exp per build, especially since planets are easily taken when they are small.

[JettJackson]

I cannot argue that the xp from building planets has been increased to 10800 from 0. However I can point out that it has had zero effect on planet building. Hugh is pretty much still the only cat to do it. I believe the idea was quite solid but the amount missed its target, thus the suggestion that increasing that amount may have the desired effect of spurring more planet building. As currently the amount of xp given for planet builds is a pittance and has zero effect on gameplay.

8-10 planets at 10.8k a pop is 86400exp to 108000exp which is between level 27 and level 30 in exp, that is much much more than 0 effect on gameplay.