Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Reaction to second half of this
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
-Prelaunch now returned to 12 ticks
-Prelaunch ticks now show for attack fleets in Jumpgate Probe scans Oh dear. :( |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
i think the pl thing is pretty good tbh. adds some tactics in there. ie PL +6 but then log in when its +4 and cancel and live launch. if you can be bothered to wake up at 4am that is :D
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
-Prelaunch ticks now show for attack fleets in Jumpgate Probe scans
This means there will always be PL defence when attacking certain alliances. this change is great for Americans and ultores/apprime but really bad for those of us in Europe with jobs! the lower alliances will find themselves getting targeted a lot more because of this prelaunch has become the new stats, each round it gets messed with and now it forces people to live launch or not bother! should stop trying to make the game hardcore only, there is few of us able to play like that, and im not one of them. there is a lot of us out there struggling to keep enthusiasm in playing. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
I don't really want to start this discussion yet again but it's important that people reading this don't assume all Planetarion players agree with your interpretation. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Perhaps the prelaunch shown on jpgs should be limited just for all prelaunches with +3 and more. That would be exactly my suggestion which I made about 1 year ago.
+1 and +2 should not be shown on jpg. keeping PL low should be encouraged this way. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Looking from a HR point of view, pre-launch is often used and don't see why it's needed to penalize a less hardcore alliance. I also understand the point of view regarding PL from the more hardcore players/alliances, but I 'only' care about HR in this case ;) |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
(PS, Shev, if you want, you can come over and we'll cry for a bit, together. :( ) |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
just show the exact number of PL. what is wrong with this?
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Can we have
-Prelaunch ticks now show for attack fleets in Jumpgate Probe scans as a paid upgrade please. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
No.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
as with what Blue_Esper said
some of the following could make this less painfull as in its current state its only prevented by distorters. 1, make it an add on research 2, add it to the I scan so only the planet with the incomming can scan it. 3, for upgraded planets only 4, high cost for the scan 5, have a minimum number of amps or % of constructions in amps to enable you to be able to do it. 6, lower the amount of prelaunch on defence ticks to +1 |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Then the JGP would remain the same, just showing ETA without prelaunch. If you want to see if fleet are prelaunched, you could scan each incoming fleet separately to get the number of ticks of prelaunch. This would also make it more expensive, which lines it up nicely with the amount of information you're getting. And finally, this means requiring a minimum number or percentage of amps is unnecessary, since you don't do the scan on yourself but on your attacker. The minimum number of amps is thus the number of dists your attacker has. As a nice side effect, this makes dists better, which always makes me happy. Yes. I like this. Appoco, get to it! <3 The rest of the ideas I don't really like, but this one merits particular scorn: Lowering prelaunch on defense is a terrible idea. Not because it ruins the game, but because it doesn't really do anything, except inconvenience players. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
yes move it to i-scan please... that's a better place for it than jgp's, and increases importance of amps and dists.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
The +1 max PL for defence doesn't only inconvenience players. It means defenders (especially in gal) have to stay online for even longer to launch their fleets.
I'd agree with reducing *attacking* PL to +1 max. :) |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
would it be possible in future for changes to be discussed, thought about and then announced rather than what we see in the past rounds where they are announced, then discussed and maybe thought about!!
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Most of the things that were announced were discussed, you just chose to stay away from PS.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Fairest way to do it, as you said makes amps and dists important again and requires activity to do the I scan - although would that be prone to abuse? ie. You +8 PL and then the guy I scan's you - you then cancel and redo it to +4 PL... you could seriously screw about with PL defence that way |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
You say abuse, I say strategy.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
the fact people are trying to come up with ideas to make it work, shouldn't that mean the idea should be put on hold until r50 and be implemented properly
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
I like it.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
read the changelog.
Happy about: PL on scans Salvage redoing Indifferent about: The rest. All in all, one of the better changelog of late ;) |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
But its another thing that enforces activity in a game where activity is on the wain. It can be used by highly active people to cut out defence fleets whilst the less active yet not less capable ones suffer from something that is supposed to help them. Als o how does this work will it read 11 or 12 or so on on the j scan?? If so couldnt you just +3 onwards PL fi/co ships matching your BS fleet on someone and watch it drag in a shit loads of anti BS and then launch your BS a tick later? WITHOUT EVER LAUNCHING YOUR FI/CO!! |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
having not actually seen it in action i was presuming it would look something like eta 9 +5 as is seen on many pages as opposed to making it the whole number .. eg 14 as this doesnt exist anywhere as a format already.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Well if they are pled and amongst a reasonable amount of incs and on a planet that is sleeping then probably a tick or 2 - it really only needs to be 1 tho, the defence just needs to launch and its out of action for 2 ticks |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Something for future rounds: Maybe add some rules like (own amps/target dists) > 3 So having twice as much amps then target's dists would show all enemy fleet movement with pl ticks exactly shown. Just for future rounds to think about.. Of course this requires that you can build amps/dists as many as you like. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Quote:
I think to have Appocomaster's proposed added feature (a feature that will affect the less hardcore alliances might I add), there needs to be some sort of "premium" attached to it. i.e only accessible to upgraded planets and/or some of the above that Mistwraith suggested. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
-Prelaunch ticks now show for attack fleets in Jumpgate Probe scans
I am sorry, but WHAT!!!!! This will benefit only people who do not prelaunch, they will be able to set an attack on +7 or something, then at launchtime pull and send on real target and watch and laugh as all the defence goes on their fake. We saw how good Ult were with buccs v co at pl'ing def, it is going to make it a whole lot easier for them if they know when it is launching too. Pl'ers will be able to go to bed knowing that their attack is covered already. This will mean the hardcore alliances (ult/app) will have a field day roiding whilst the less active alliances who prelaunch a lot will have defence against them time and time and time again. Any active players in these less hardcore alliances will soon find there alliance mates so small they can't help defend them when the lolwaves come to roid them down. I am all for changes to the game, but this change makes such a massive impact and is positive to only the most active players. It needs to be the other way round, the game needs to be more social and people need to be able to do fairly well without needing to be online at 3am in the morning. This is possibly the WORST idea in pa EVER and could very well be the final nail in the coffin. Prelaunch +12 and NOT showing at all in jgp is the way to go... |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Hahaha
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Personally I would prefer that the prelaunch ticks only showed on incoming scans.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
and depending on the AMPs/Dists ratio the info could be - a '*' next to all PLed fleet not launching this tick - add the eta+x (ex eta+5) for all PLed fleets launching later than the next 4 ticks - the exact eta+x for all PLed fleets in the same way dists return mixed informations on people trying to scan you. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
I think that the PL ticks should be shown on Incoming scans not Jpg scans. It gives more power to higher amp planets and makes it not easy to arrange PL defense.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Haven't you heard, Forest has already made a lolblock next round, so sending defence won't be an issue, making defending hard, however, is very important for him!
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
I'm in ultores and i PL my attacks, i am also australian so...ner
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
Quote:
But on the jgp it doesnt give the exact tick but rather... * between 1-3 ticks till the fleet launches / goes red x 4 ticks + till the fleet launches / goes red to ensure that there is some randomness in the event of trying to get Pled defense |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
If it's moved to the incoming scan, I see no reason whatsoever to keep it on the JGP as well. That's just creating extra work for no purpose.
|
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
It's not really an opaque problem, but I get the feeling I could argue my case for years with Appoc and he would never understand how unfair this could actually be. I'm just surprised no-one else has abused it big time. Nothing about the gal fund limit of 75 mill being easy to work around either. But I guess no-one really cares if the top galaxy has 100 mill each in their fund. My only question is why even have the 75 mill limit in the first place then. The PL stuff is meh, as an active player I'd just PL the wrong tick and let the target gather PL def if he wants, just to launch on a different tick. It only really helps the active players waste even more alliance fleets, and it will increase the frustration of people that try to gather PL def before going to bed. Worst of all though, it'll make getting defence easier against the less active alliance that you know won't change their PL. Also don't forget, the more powerful you make constructions (amps/dists in this case) the more powerful you make Terrans and certain governments. Haphazardly making core changes like these before ship stats are finalized is absurd. It should all be worked out together with a goal in mind and go through beta testing to see if the changes are working as intended. Seems like we just skip all that these days, make some stats and some random PL changes, cross our fingers and hope for the best. Gee, I wonder why this game isn't gaining players. |
Re: Round 49 Change Log Reaction
Quote:
added to that, the limit of 50mil res donated from galfund to planet in any 200 tick period makes what you said, all but impossible. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:43. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018