[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Makhil

Exiling people is a good option when you're unlucky with the shuffle. I see no reason to penalize a gal further. Exiles should be allowed between tick 36 and tick 72. Then I have no problem with your suggestion.

so where do those players you exile out go? Do they go to c200, and then if they log back in tick 73 and fill up the 'holes' created ticks 36-72, what then? What about galaxies where inactives are the 'norm' rather than the 'exception'

Originally Posted by Ave

2-5 sounds all good. I would like to see people stand up for their gals to make them grow and not disband them right away by the actual vote or by exiling themselfs or their galaxy mates.

It's hard work when you have galaxy members you feel less active than you. When you see your roids lost because they don't send defence, or when you attack and gain roids to help the galaxy grow and they don't, it's discouraging. If there's only a few people in your galaxy, you want to exile those people. If you are in a galaxy that has lots of those people, you want to exile (or disband the galaxy).
What happens to those people that are exiled / left in the inactive galaxy?

Mentoring, accessing others planet details would be a good thing and would help certainly to give the new player guidance.

Speaking as the last surviving member of the mentor team in 2004, when we got 5-6 people together to mentor and were an absolute failure, before moving into the support team, it's hard to get people together to want to help out and mentor, especially arranging coverage from volunteers. Allowing players to access other players planet details would be a huge trust issue; though less so if mentors were only assigned to specific planets. Adding in such settings obviously takes time, and it's much easier (though more inconvenient) to work with planets by getting them to paste / describe their issues and talk them through.
I still don't know that we'd
a) get enough people willing to spend the time to talk (or do more than the current support team do), or
b) have any sort of direction or aim beyond "helping players", or
c) have enough infrastructure coded and in place to successfully support b) and/or potentially reduce the issue of a)

I believe my previous post about ground troops covers the need for new tactics and formations. It will obviously also brng in some more technology.

I'm not sure about this whole ground troops thing. Whilst some players do want new features, others just want a game they can understand and play easily. I'd only be willing to add something like ground troops in if it were optional and not compulsory, for that reason. It's the same reason I'd also want some sort of auto option for any micromanagement added.

Setting a public war/nap status. IE declaring war or making agreements would be viable by the community. You could gain some eta bonus to sort your battles. It gets more interesting to all without access to politics. Perhaps some sort of negatination system could be created also. But will get back to that, gotta run to work.

Covered at least some of this in my blog (quoted below).
I assume you mean viewable /visable by "viable". I disagree with eta bonuses; I far prefer asteroid cap changes and xp bonuses (the XP one obviously feeding off the asteroid cap bonus). I'm not so sure about the NAP system, but it could come into effect with a similar startup/cooldown period, perhaps to complement a "friendly fire" feature.

Originally Posted by me

War

I know this has been knocked around in some forms, but I'd like to introduce an option for galaxies and alliances to go to war with other respective galaxies / alliances. It would be a case of:
gc / hcs specify target
12 ticks "warmup time", during which you can cancel the war
target mailed / war announced on "feed"
48 period of 1 way "war", during which you get significant xp bonuses and an increased roid cap on targets
12 tick "cool down" period, during which you cannot attack anyone else

no intel will be provided when you go to war with someone, so intel is important for alliance wars
you can only go to war with 1 player

I was also looking at some sort of ranking system, i.e. you'd get (their initial score)/(your initial score) * function( xp gained in war, roids capped in war), and you could average this to find how effective you were in war, and have a 'warlords' ranking.

I added in the 12 ticks either side to give the dcs a rest, really. I'm more worried about that than anything else.

p.s.
these should all really be in different threads