[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Zeyi

Wrong. The ratio is exactly the same, so how is that better?

I'm fully aware the ratio is the same. The fact that mathematical relationships doesn't change will not ensure however that human psychology also won't. Generally, people have been whining about how little targets there are because of the small amount of planets. Take comfort here. A larger amount of planets won't change anything because the ration stays the same, you mean? How come, through the history, people have considered 'more planets, better', even though one CAN assume that 'most ratios remain same'.

Originally Posted by Mzyxtplk

That entire series of posts was pedantic, needlessly confrontational and honestly? just plain shit. Not just yours, but Keiz' too. There was nothing in there worth reading.

I did, very early, however, state that I've given up even attempting a discussion that starts on a very incorrect argument of an 'opinion' or 'appreciation of values' being an 'assumption' (ie. "I believe reducing income for sleep periods is a punishment since it punishes people for having the biological need to sleep, and in order to increase the playerbase we need to accomondate for people's biological rhytms more"). So the bitch yanked, and I simply trolled. I am in a full understanding I did it, and I did say I'd do it. Which is why I asked for the bit to be removed in sake of keeping things cleaner.

I am frankly quite surprised I was bothered to discuss this ratio issue with such extent. Cheap shots that are thrown in without even considering the larger picture (e.g. other benefits that active players could reap from such mode) are just not really that constructive.

Originally Posted by Mzyxtplk

However, in the last 30 rounds, that has not been the case. The number of active hardcore players hasn't gone down nearly as much as the number of random newbie targets. I have data on this, if you want it.

However, as we've witnessed with the Chicago school explaining ketchup economics is pointless to a freshwater economist. We're aware that a pound of ketchup costs half the amount of what two pounds cost, then markets are perfect. Under this presumtion, also, capitol asset pricing model is perfect. We all know none of these are, the premise falls first on the fact that the argument excludes all other factors that might affect the situation.

(this also serves as a prime reason for why I am unwilling to discuss the impacts to meta, unless confronted by a person who actually has a clue. this one doesn't. discussing ketchup economics gets nobody nowhere).

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

I'm not sure if I agree that sleep mode should be elective. It would allow active players who don't really need sleep mode, to 'save it' until such a time they know they're getting serious incomings, and only then use it. Basically like a short vacation mode, without any down sides.

A six hour downtime each day would be slightly uncomfortable for people living off time zones. However, if you're willing to send them off with it, then your case is better. I wasn't willing to be so time-zoneist.

See, we're already rewarding activity aren't we! How is this, whoever was the jerk that was moaning about it. Yes, on the ball. I'm aware of this, and it does call for 'abuse' too. However, since it'd be possible to scan them for it, you'd still be able to know if they have the option available at any given point. Maybe you'd be able to scam them to it? Maybe not.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

What do you refer to here? I can't think of anything.

I think it needs to be less than 24 hours to allow people slight changes, e.g. 'this night I need to go sleep a bit earlier than the other'. However, of course, you can come up with the "mom he spams this mode" -argument, ie. abuse of it. I dismissed it before it happened by calling it not very relevant or dangerous.

Allowing a 'hard' sleep mode is of course relatively rough an approach. But it would probably cover a larger sphere of things people find uncomfortable Alternatively, you could expand the social side, by allowing an 'alliance/galaxy defense fleet slot' and assigning fleet to it, and then a minister/alliance officer could freely designate defensive missions to these fleets. This'd be slightly unorthodox since it'd essentially be OH DEAR GOD ACCOUNT SHARING IS IT, but it'd do something. It's, however, a different subject altogether.