[Discuss] In-galaxy defence slot

[ComradeRob]

Following on from this thread, I suggest the introduction of an extra fleet slot for galaxy defence.

It would work like this: the current 3 slots would continue to work as normal - they could be re-branded as "jumpgates", the point being that you can only open 3 jumpgates out of your galaxy at any one time. However, even if you have 3 jumpgates open you should still be able to send ships within your own galaxy.

This could be implemented in a few different ways:

1) Allow the base fleet to be sent in-galaxy. This avoids adding an extra fleet slot, but it does create other problems, such as what to do with ships coming out of production while the base fleet is out.

2) Create an extra in-galaxy only fleet slot. This seems like the best all-round solution to me.

3) Create an infinite number of in-galaxy fleet slots. Would be a bit more "realistic", but ultimately counter-productive. It would also create extra load on the ticker.


The addition of an extra in-galaxy fleet slot would allow alliance members to defend both their alliance and their galaxy at the same time, which makes galaxy cooperation much more likely.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

2) Create an extra in-galaxy only fleet slot. This seems like the best all-round solution to me.

I would have to concurr - if you use the base fleet not only do you have problems with production, but also the losses due to sending everything 'left over' would often still not make it worthwhile to defend in-gal.

Whilst an indeterminate number of in-gal slots sounds really bad, it wouldnt be too much i dont think as players only have a certain amount of ships to put in those slots . Having said that, i still think 2) is the way to go.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

1) Allow the base fleet to be sent in-galaxy. This avoids adding an extra fleet slot, but it does create other problems, such as what to do with ships coming out of production while the base fleet is out.

How about if the base fleet is gone, ships in production won't even be delivered until the Base fleet returns

[Cochese]

Option 2 is excellent

[Alessio]

Well it basicly is a forth fleetslot because this is exactly what a 4th fleetslot would be used for..
This would mean more ingal defence ofcourse, so attacks become more difficult
and I dont know if more planets defending is really a good thing in an attack orientated game..

It also is an extra fleet to run your fleet with

So it removes an tactical decision you have to make from the game..
You dont have to try and balance your fleets anymore like other people also stated on the original post
I think this would also make the less involving.. so im against it

[MAdnRisKy]

voting for option 2.

and its about time too

[Tactitus]

Option 2.

[King]

I like option 2. But I think delta's idea would be alot more interesting. You send out your base fleet and all your other fleets are out and now you have no def. Ships out of production are waiting to be delivered (You keep using that one production slot until your base fleet gets back.) Now you have do you def in gal and chance losing your roids and not even getting xp for a battle. If this were to happen I think this is the way it should go.

[wakey]

I dont know really, I like Option 1 with the idea that you have a choice of leaving yourself open by doing so thus ensuring its a useful feature but not too powerful but I like the way that option 2 goes almost as far as you can iin bring the galaxy sprit back to the game

Why is it that most people perfer Option 2. Theres a number of people above who have posted their support for option 2 whos opinions i respect so if like to hear why as im slightly favouring option 1atm due it being too powerful and making ingal defence too easy as theres not as much thought needed.With base fleet being useable in gal you have to decide if your going to send itwith doing so sending everything and leaving base open for attack thus putting a rsik factor in using it

[King]

I agree with Wakey.

[Cochese]

Personally, I've always felt that having 3 fleet slots was too limiting; more precisely, that if there was going to be a limited number of slots, then at least one should be a defense-only fleet.

Making a 4th slot in-galaxy defense only appeals most to me in that regard.


Option 1 isn't too bad though...and if that's the route we go, then Deta's idea about withholding ships in production would seem to make sense.

[Tactitus]

Option 1 is bit messy from a conceptual point of view. Currently, ships that come out of production go into the base fleet--which is always there. If you can send the base fleet away then the game has to figure what to do with all the ships that came out of production while the base fleet is gone.

As I see it, there are two basic options. Either throw the ships away (a bit harsh ), or remember how many ships came out of production and add them to the base fleet when the base fleet returns (in effect, maintain a "hidden" base fleet). A hidden base fleet in turn introduces additional complications: do ships in the hidden fleet participate in combat? Can they be scanned? Do they count towards value? Etc. Etc. Etc. Depending on the answers to these questions, the game has to special-case the hidden fleet for various conditions.

Option 2 would be much cleaner conceptionally. The new fleet slot would function the same as the existing slots in all respects except it couldn't be sent out of the galaxy. Thus, the only special-case handling would be localized to the missions page. Easier to impliment; easier to document; easier to understand; and--hopefully--fewer bugs.

Option 3 is just weird.

[Cochese]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

As I see it, there are two basic options. Either throw the ships away (a bit harsh ), or remember how many ships came out of production and add them to the base fleet when the base fleet returns (in effect, maintain a "hidden" base fleet). A hidden base fleet in turn introduces additional complications: do ships in the hidden fleet participate in combat? Can they be scanned? Do they count towards value? Etc. Etc. Etc. Depending on the answers to these questions, the game has to special-case the hidden fleet for various conditions.

I would think the answers would be no, no, and no. The 'hidden base fleet' would exist in limbo, until the 'normal' base fleet returned, at which point they would 'come out of production', be scannable, participate in combat, and add their respective value.

Sounds like crap really

Option 2 would be much cleaner conceptionally. The new fleet slot would function the same as the existing slots in all respects except it couldn't be sent out of the galaxy. Thus, the only special-case handling would be localized to the missions page. Easier to impliment; easier to document; easier to understand; and--hopefully--fewer bugs.

Excellent point. The more complicated things get, the more that can (and of course will) go wrong.

Option 3 is just weird.

It makes sense to me, but I am of the opinion that confining things into three artificial "fleet slots" is silly in the first place, and one should be able to create as many fleets (within reason) as they see fit.

[Monroe]

The fleet slot limitation has always been a feature of the game, and players have been complaining about it since r1. I think limiting the # of fleet slots is an interesting dilema for the game and well worth it, plus I am sure coding to handle an unlimited number of fleet slots could be a real night mare. I also am tending towards option two, or option one with the withhold fleet caviot. The disadvantage of option 1 is it forces you to send your entire base fleet on defense, regardless of whether pieces of it are worth sending or not. Kind of getting back to the point I made in the origional thread, the reason the fourth slot is a good idea is due to changes that have been made in the game that limit the ability of a player to use his whole fleet. So option one is too limiting, and too complicated. Option three takes the game a whole new direction, and besides being hard to code could lead to all kinds of abuses in the game. So given the options suggested so far creating a fleet slot for ingal defense makes the most sense, and would go far to solving the fleet issues that people run into because of the limitation of only having three slots, as well as having the added bennefit of increasing the bond between galaxy mates, which would be a huge plus imho.

[hellsmurf]

1 extra in gal slot would be fine...


hum idea:

u got 4 fleetspots + base fleet
u have to construct stargate-hypergate-jumpgate(etc) to get lower travel times
u can only build up to 3 gates....
u can lunch attacks without gates.... ingal 5 ticks(gate not used)
without gate it takes 24(or something else) ticks to arrive a target...
gates can be destroyed
(if a gate gets destroyed and fleet is flying... fleet needs longer time to come back...)

well idea is gd... it can be modified too..

nice tacitcal possibiles....

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Alessio

This would mean more ingal defence ofcourse, so attacks become more difficult and I dont know if more planets defending is really a good thing in an attack orientated game..

Whilst that's true, the ship stats and scoring system both strongly favour those people who attack - especially larger planets than themselves. This, i think, means that additional in-gal defence (of which there would be some, but not a huge amount imo due to the inactive nature of galaxies these days) would go some way to balacing it - whilst still providing large benefits to the offensively orientated.

It also is an extra fleet to run your fleet with

Again, true, but the main focus of fleetcatching is not the little stuff that stays at home, rather the large attacking fleet that is returning home. It would only reduce the damage done by a small amount and fleet catching would still be a very viable tactic.

So it removes an tactical decision you have to make from the game..
You dont have to try and balance your fleets anymore like other people also stated on the original post
I think this would also make the less involving.. so im against it

You still need to balance your fleet - but now you can send stuff that you wouldnt normally have available to defend your galaxies. An example would be with me; i'd have my arrows and bombers defending in 2 fleets, and attacking with my FR in a third. now, i can send my Fireblades which traditionally camp at home to defend some random in my gal - something i wouldnt normally have been able to do.

I think the positive benefits for player's experience (as good galaxies always make pa more fun), the community and for the game far outweigh the potential downsides of having a fourth (gal only) slot.

[Cochese]

For instance, I currently have two galaxy mates with CR incomings, and my Bombers are stuck at home without a fleet slot (3 fleet defending is ace, innit).

With the proposed feature, I could potentially save at least one of them--they're both small, haven't played long, and would stand to benefit most from 'not being farmed'.

[Makhil]

I like the idea of the ingal fleet slot, but maybe we could balance it a bit so as not to favour too much the def side...
The 3 normal slots are powerful Jumpgates and allow you to send def ingal at eta5
The extra 'gal only' fleet slot is not a jumpgate, thus ingal eta is higher (6 or 7 or even only a -1 bonus as for alliances).

[wakey]

While all the views expressed are valid I still think option 2 still potential takes the game back a level on the 'fun' level.

Perhaps those playing at a higher level have a differnt view on this but from a lower level view of the game the stats, trageting system, fleet ect have all come together perfectly to produce whats a fun game. Yes a player is easily roided but at the same time it easy enough to walk into any othere planet and regain lost roids and on the whole people just dont really care if they are being roided because regaining them is the fun part. And because of XP regaining them isnt just getting your score back, its increasing it so you dont even get the "going no where" feeling. The only people who i've seen really complaing are those who simply havent understood the concept of attacking or xp but even they soon start loving it once you introduce them to the joys of being able to roid a bigger planet for good score.

Now the potential problem i see with option 2 is it would dent this too much. One of the reasons for such easy roiding is often the fact that theres a lack of fleets to help both your alliance and galaxy. A galaxy defence fleet would guarentee your galaxy had one fleet for every planet in the galaxy and give your alliance one extra fleet also. Now while this probally wouldnt help the small galaxies a great deal once the players moved into the intremediate level of the game they could struggle to land attacks without the support of a top alliance to overkill them preventing defence. This then potentally leads to stagnation for the mid level people because they either have to bash the smaller people for gains thta really dont cover their losses by much or see most of their attacks having to be pulled so gaining nothing while their roid count and score tumbles

While i would like to see more galaxy co-operation and I ike the idea of a galaxy only fleet I wouldnt want to see the gap betwen the hardcore, top alliance players and the casual smaller alliance player open up again after this round had closed it somewhat to the benifit of the game

[at0mic.c0w]

In times of need (i.e. a gal raid) this fleet slot would most likely be used within a buddypack only thus not strengthen the galaxy spirit but instead strengthen alliances.
Thus i propose that this fleet slot can only be used on galaxy members which are not part of the defender's buddy pack.

(option 2 btw)

[Banned]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

In times of need (i.e. a gal raid) this fleet slot would most likely be used within a buddypack only thus not strengthen the galaxy spirit but instead strengthen alliances.
Thus i propose that this fleet slot can only be used on galaxy members which are not part of the defender's buddy pack.

(option 2 btw)

Far more people per galaxy are random than buddied.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Banned

Far more people per galaxy are random than buddied.

what's your point ? the random people can only benefit from limiting the in-gal-fleet to non-buddypack-members.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

what's your point ? the random people can only benefit from limiting the in-gal-fleet to non-buddypack-members.

I have to agree with c0w on this matter - at least i would know that if there was a preference of defending my buddy mate or a random other person (espeically if the other person was in the other buddy pack) i'd defend my own.

provided i had the right ships to do so, ofc.

[Alessio]

Alright.. because I dont like the ideas above Ive got a new suggestion for a 4th fleet:

What about a 4th fleet that can be used for all purposes
but can only be used every 36 ticks, thats like 1 day u can def with it.. but then u cant use it the next day..



24 hours + 12 hours to make sure its really unusable the following night
but you have it back again in time to prevent earlier launches day 2
A support fleet, draft, special forces, call to arms or militia.. whatever u wanna call it

Its not like people wanna waste their extra fleet spot on an attack
But it doesnt force people to do anything...
People could use it for ingal defence..
but seeing what people do now with their fleets,
the most likely thing to happen that people are gonna do with this is:

- slot 1 alliance attack
- slot 2 alliance def
- slot 3 galaxy def
- limited slot ally def (or 2 fleet attack)

which means galaxy defence can finally get their own slot

or

- slot 1 alliance attack
- slot 2 alliance attack
- slot 3 alliance def
- limited slot galaxy def

thats what alot of big players do now (those who dont defend ingal)..
So it doesnt effect the alliance stuff
But then they also have an extra fleet for defending ingal
They know their gal is their last line of defence

It helps with ingal def in any case and it adds to the game by giving people an extra tactical decision

[Banned]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

what's your point ? the random people can only benefit from limiting the in-gal-fleet to non-buddypack-members.

Make sure your entire alliance goes random so they can defend eachother ingal.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Banned

Make sure your entire alliance goes random so they can defend eachother ingal.

do you think this outweighs the downside of not having people you can trust in your galaxy ? Do you think forcing alliances to make a decision and possibly introducing more diversity into the political situation is a bad thing (not saying that alliances would actually go the 'random'-route)

i still fail to see how anything you have said so far is not in favour of limiting the in-gal fleet to planets not in your buddy pack.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

i still fail to see how anything you have said so far is not in favour of limiting the in-gal fleet to planets not in your buddy pack.

I'm sorry, I don't have any good arguments. It just seems too insane for me to consider to be a serious suggestion.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Banned

I'm sorry, I don't have any good arguments. It just seems to insane for me to consider to be a serious suggestion.

Why is it sane NOT to have it as a suggestion? I dont seem to remember you arguing in favour of having the 4th slot free to defend whomever. Perhaps i am shortsighted and not seeing all that you see. Please enlighten me/us so we can analyse your point(s) .


Anyway, I think the effect of 'free' gal defence slot will be that buddy packs will become stronger as more fleets are available for them to defend with. Whilst that's a good thing, i think a better thing would be for the galaxy as a single unit to benefit from the use of a fourth fleet slot for def. This would only occurr if there was a penalty for defending your buddies with the 4th slot, or an incentive for NOT defending your buddies with the 4th slot. besides, if both buddy packs +paid randoms can come to an agreement about using their 4th slots if they are restricted to non-buddypack def only, then they can get around this obstacle. But that's the point - encouraging in-gal communication and co-operation.

Please remember my nickname before flaming this too hard, btw .

[Monroe]

It seems to me that limiting who one can defend in galaxy is contrary to nature of this game. By dictacting that you cannot defend your buddy pack members with your forth fleet slot the PA team would be dictating strategy in a very limiting way, which i don't feel is in the interest of the game. So what that buddy pack members are more likely to defend eachother rather then their other gal mates. This is true now, when we have only 3 fleet slots, should we limit buddy pack members from defending each other with a regular fleet slot too? This doesn't make any sense. Sure if there is a special in galaxy defense fleet buddy pack members will be more inclined to defend eachother... .but then i see that as an advantage for buddy pack members, and not a bad thing at all. The only suggested limitation that might make sense that i've seen so far is the idea of increasing the eta of this special fleet a tick, to decrease the chance of defense (call it organizational ineficiency). Otherwise I think an unlimited in galaxy defense fleet is a wonderful idea, and the concerns that have been raised against it, at least so far, have been fairly trivial in my opinion. I say this not to stiffle the conversation, but to ask those against an unrestricted in gal def slot to clarify their arguements, because so far they seem fairly weak.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Monroe

This doesn't make any sense.

not limiting who you can defend with the 4th fleet would cancel out a large chunk of what is the intention behind installing the 4th fleet in the first place. so yes: it does make sense.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Monroe

By dictacting that you cannot defend your buddy pack members with your forth fleet slot the PA team would be dictating strategy in a very limiting way,

They have done this on a large number of other occasions. EG 1 planet per person, not being able to attack in-gal, -1 ETA defence for allies/clusters. -0 ETA for attacking in Cluster, 3 fleet slots, JGP only if you have a fleet inbound etc etc. It wouldnt be the only case where PA is reducing the available options to players - and imo its a good thing.

So what that buddy pack members are more likely to defend eachother rather then their other gal mates.

This completely defeats the purpose of the point of this suggestion. The idea was that it would foster in-galaxy communication and improve relations, the willingness to stick your neck out for one another, so watch over each other's backs (in a positive way) and so on. The idea was to foster harmony in galaxies where the new buddypack/random system has significantly shaken up the old galaxies.

This is true now, when we have only 3 fleet slots, should we limit buddy pack members from defending each other with a regular fleet slot too?

no, that's just stupid - and i dont know why you suggested it either. If you want to defend your buddymate with one of your normal fleets - that's fine. Its the price you pay for ensuring you land in a galaxy with mates (that and the 10 pounds to pay for planets :\). As you say yourself - buddymates will defend each other anyway. Why would we need a new suggestion to do that for?

but then i see that as an advantage for buddy pack members, and not a bad thing at all.

Why? All i see it doing is further entrenching gals into stalemates over which buddy pack controls the galaxy - whilst not helping the non-buddy pack planets at all. Which, again, is not the point of this proposal.

The only suggested limitation that might make sense that i've seen so far is the idea of increasing the eta of this special fleet a tick, to decrease the chance of defense (call it organizational ineficiency).

To be honest, i would prefer incentives for people to defend the allianceless/smallest 50% of the galaxy in preference to penalising players. Like an (significant) extra bonus for salvage, for example.

to clarify their arguements, because so far they seem fairly weak.

How about that?

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

not limiting who you can defend with the 4th fleet would cancel out a large chunk of what is the intention behind installing the 4th fleet in the first place.

Please don't make assumptions about my intentions

Originally Posted by at0mic,c0w

so yes: it does make sense.

No, it doesn't.

I have two objections to the idea:

On principle, because it is arbitrary and unrealistic. Why is it possible for your ships to fly to one planet in your galaxy, but not another? It makes no sense.

On practical grounds, because I don't think it would actually help anyone much. Consider a scenario in which there is only one strong buddypack in a galaxy, and this galaxy has mostly weak random planets. Imagine for a moment that this is your galaxy. Your 3 buddypack planets get incoming every night, but can't use their in-galaxy def slot to defend each other. Is this fair, or remotely helpful to anyone?

I'd say that 50% of my in-galaxy defences have been to my buddy pack and 50% to random planets/the other buddy pack. I don't think I need more encouragement to defend the other galaxy members. It should be a matter of choice - those who want a strong galaxy will defend on the basis of need. Those who simply don't care wouldn't defend anyway, restricting their freedom to defend their buddy pack won't change that one bit.

p.s. As i write this, I have two fleets out for in-galaxy defence. Neither are to members of my buddypack.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

On principle, because it is arbitrary and unrealistic.

And travelling from one galaxy to another in 7-12 hours is realistic?

Why is it possible for your ships to fly to one planet in your galaxy, but not another? It makes no sense.

Why cant you attack someone who is smaller than you?

its about game balance - not realism .

[quote]On practical grounds, because I don't think it would actually help anyone much. Consider a scenario in which there is only one strong buddypack in a galaxy, and this galaxy has mostly weak random planets. Imagine for a moment that this is your galaxy. Your 3 buddypack planets get incoming every night, but can't use their in-galaxy def slot to defend each other. Is this fair, or remotely helpful to anyone?[/qupte]

p.s. As i write this, I have two fleets out for in-galaxy defence. Neither are to members of my buddypack.

Hurrah. i only have the one - but i've defended and returned on antoher tonight .

Edit: damn italics

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

And travelling from one galaxy to another in 7-12 hours is realistic?

It's realistic with the implied assumption of faster-than-light travel or some form of "jumpgate" technology. Obviously this is "unrealistic" in the sense that these technologies do not exist, but it does not require a particularly tremendous leap of imagination to believe it. Almost all sci-fi and a great many computer games rest on these kinds of assumptions.

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Why cant you attack someone who is smaller than you?

Good question

At the risk of going off on a tangent... I never particularly liked the bash limit - a far better limit would have been to limit the size of the fleet that can be sent against the target planet. That could have prevented huge bash fleets without restricting player actions any more than strictly necessary.

I think my original suggestion around the time of the bash limit was that players would have to build jumpgates to launch fleets, with successively larger jumpgates allowing larger fleets to be launched, but also allowing larger incoming fleets.

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

its about game balance - not realism .

There's a balance between those imperatives though. The game would be more balanced if, every tick, magic space monkeys stole roids from the biggest planets and gave them to newbies, but it wouldn't be a better game for it. Suspension of disbelief is an important part of any game design and arbitrary limits tend to make players realise that they're just playing space database management.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

At the risk of going off on a tangent... I never particularly liked the bash limit - a far better limit would have been to limit the size of the fleet that can be sent against the target planet. That could have prevented huge bash fleets without restricting player actions any more than strictly necessary.

iirc (and i do), early Roid Cap formulas were based around the notion of comparing fleet sizes. The problem was massive planets could send an attacking fleet that a tiny planet still couldnt deal with - and if they could, then the attacker could just send the rest of his fleet to wtfpwn him. This was the age of Bash & roid fleets - where the bash fleet discouraged defence / encourage fleeing, and the roid fleet was the only one to land (which actually when comparing values permitted full cap).

Obviously, this wasnt an advantageous situation.

There's a balance between those imperatives though. The game would be more balanced if, every tick, magic space monkeys stole roids from the biggest planets and gave them to newbies,

really? to me, the word balance incorporates all aspects of the game and game play - incl ship stats and providing incentive to attack. If magic space monkeys (lol btw ) same to take roids away, it would remove the incentive to engage offensively and thus not be a balancing feature.

Suspension of disbelief is an important part of any game design and arbitrary limits tend to make players realise that they're just playing space database management.

Players who quit over inherrent injustices no longer give a damn about breaking the suspension of disbelief to make the game seem more 'real' :\.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

iirc (and i do), early Roid Cap formulas were based around the notion of comparing fleet sizes. The problem was massive planets could send an attacking fleet that a tiny planet still couldnt deal with - and if they could, then the attacker could just send the rest of his fleet to wtfpwn him. This was the age of Bash & roid fleets - where the bash fleet discouraged defence / encourage fleeing, and the roid fleet was the only one to land (which actually when comparing values permitted full cap).

Obviously, this wasnt an advantageous situation.

This system did not limit the size of fleets that could be sent, it limited the amount of roids that could be captured with large fleets.

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Players who quit over inherrent injustices no longer give a damn about breaking the suspension of disbelief to make the game seem more 'real' :\.

Where is the "inherent injustice" in allowing a 4th fleet slot to be used to defend all members of a galaxy?

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Where is the "inherent injustice" in allowing a 4th fleet slot to be used to defend all members of a galaxy?

Landing in a dysfunctional gal, whose problems are not assisted by having a 4th def slot that wont actually contribute to increasing the likelihood of galaxy harmony and co-operation?

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Landing in a dysfunctional gal, whose problems are not assisted by having a 4th def slot that wont actually contribute to increasing the likelihood of galaxy harmony and co-operation?

A dysfunctional gal is a dysfunctional gal regardless of any other factors. If the galaxy is all that dysfunctional then surely limiting the 4th slot would have no effect anyway?

It's hardly "inherent injustice" that galaxy members may choose to defend their buddy pack ahead of random galaxy members.

There has to be some give and take here - if a random planet is active enough to be on IRC and perhaps even offer defence ships himself, he is likely to receive defence. There are plenty of galaxies where few or none of the random planets are so active, and the buddy pack players are the only ones capable of defending each other. Restricting the use of a 4th slot would not exactly be fair to them, would it?

[Cayl]

I would say that since you can't use the benefits of a jumpgate, the fleet is termed "Sub-Light" and takes
ETA 6 Fi/Co, ETA 7 Fr/DE, ETA 8 BS/Cr

Basically double the alliance def bonus, but not as good as using one of the more limited Jumpgate slots

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

There has to be some give and take here - if a random planet is active enough to be on IRC and perhaps even offer defence ships himself, he is likely to receive defence. There are plenty of galaxies where few or none of the random planets are so active, and the buddy pack players are the only ones capable of defending each other. Restricting the use of a 4th slot would not exactly be fair to them, would it?

Ok, that's a fair enough point.

Originally Posted by Cayl

I would say that since you can't use the benefits of a jumpgate, the fleet is termed "Sub-Light" and takes
ETA 6 Fi/Co, ETA 7 Fr/DE, ETA 8 BS/Cr

Basically double the alliance def bonus, but not as good as using one of the more limited Jumpgate slots

TBH, i wouldnt do it like this. As i think i said above, i'd prefer there to be financial incentives for defending in-galaxy as opposed to ETA (or other) penalties for doing so. A good incentive would be double the salvage gained from def-in gal (or something along those lines).

Further, you galaxy has traditionally been the last line of defence. By increasing the ETA of the ships you reduce the usefulness and frequency of the 4th slot as there would be no scrambled ETA5 def in-gal 3 mins before the tick .

Anyway, players are going to use their 'jumpgate' slots for defending outside their galaxy anyway - for the simple reason that the fourth slot cant be used outside the galaxy.

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

TBH, i wouldnt do it like this. As i think i said above, i'd prefer there to be financial incentives for defending in-galaxy as opposed to ETA (or other) penalties for doing so. A good incentive would be double the salvage gained from def-in gal (or something along those lines).

Further, you galaxy has traditionally been the last line of defence. By increasing the ETA of the ships you reduce the usefulness and frequency of the 4th slot as there would be no scrambled ETA5 def in-gal 3 mins before the tick .

Anyway, players are going to use their 'jumpgate' slots for defending outside their galaxy anyway - for the simple reason that the fourth slot cant be used outside the galaxy.

Who said anything about a penalty. People will get double the alliance bonus to travel time and a free fourth fleet slot. What kind of penalty is that? I think if the suggestion is implemented it should have some balance to it. If you want eta 5 def 3 min before the tick, then save one of the primo fleet slots for it.

Sure people will us their jumpgate slots outside the galaxy, if you are awake and have the luxury of using the 4th slot fo in-gal, great, if you slept in and woke up 6 min before eta 5 is done, well I hope you have a jumpgate open

[CrazySpoon]

Originally Posted by Cayl

I would say that since you can't use the benefits of a jumpgate, the fleet is termed "Sub-Light" and takes
ETA 6 Fi/Co, ETA 7 Fr/DE, ETA 8 BS/Cr

Basically double the alliance def bonus, but not as good as using one of the more limited Jumpgate slots

I completly agree with this. Normal ETA's per shiptype.