Planetarion Forums

wakey · 13 May 2004, 19:31

Frequently Asked Features (Last Updated 13th May 2004)

Some ideas are so popular that they appear over and over again, this thread will hopefully help save both us and you time by reducing the amount of repeat posts.

Status: Possible

Dynamic ETA's – Are apprently back for r11
Private Packs – Buddy System in r11, Full private packs rumoured for R12
Alliance communication – Improved communication inside and outside alliances part of the new passport system
# –

Status: Rejected

Deathstars – Destroying structures is about as close to this as you will get
# –
# –
# –

Status: Unknown

Queuing Con/Res – No official stance (as far as i can remember) but unlikly .
Alliance Donations – Generally considered too exploitable by the community
Sleep Mode – Comes up alot and has many potential good points but also many potential problems
Increased Galaxy Sizes – Some pro's, some cons, no definate decision

Thread has been left open so you can all help locate ideas that crop up over and over again

mist · 13 May 2004, 19:39

deathstars!!!!!!!!!"3214211!!!!

oh, and removing the alliance limit so that blocking's easier. it's muhc too hard for the small alliances, who don't have as much organisation, to block at the moment! this needs to change!!!

-mist

Ultimate Newbie · 16 May 2004, 03:19

What's the status of PDS?
Hopefully its rejected, but didnt karm (or others) say that it was in this round?

heh

Gerbie · 16 May 2004, 09:08

I think it was going to be in when round 11 was supposed to be completely recoded. I guess they did not re-introduce it for the PaX style round 11.

Banned · 16 May 2004, 09:41

I can't believe 'toilets on battleships' isn't on the rejected list. Bad wakey!

wakey · 16 May 2004, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

I can't believe 'toilets on battleships' isn't on the rejected list. Bad wakey!

They were never official rejected

Ultimate Newbie · 22 May 2004, 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

I can't believe 'toilets on battleships' isn't on the rejected list. Bad wakey!

How dare you say that! The toilets would have brought a new dimension of strategy to the game - frozen bile used as wepons etc

yikes that was a funny thread - kinda died in what, R5?

Dakaka · 26 May 2004, 02:16

For the love of all that is holy ...... i stopped playing in round 4 just came back anmd palyed from tick 400 in 10.5 all the way through for havoc ....... and we're STILL talking about the damn toilets on battleships????

The more things change the more they stay the same......

Of course what would it hurt to change the description in the manual to saying the weapons on x races battleships is p[owered by methane from the newly installed toilets

Stealth · 27 May 2004, 01:05

How about increased galaxy size?

Churchil5 · 27 May 2004, 13:02

what is it 10 just now?

i think galaxy sizes should be increased because when i first played it allowed a greater level of interactivity between planets... and it made working together a lot more fun if you knew the people (for those without alliances). it also encouraged people to intreract more with other players and those people who are still around from when galaxies had 25 people!! are now great alliance players.

Ultimate Newbie · 30 May 2004, 07:15

But with so few people actually playing this game now, you have to spread all the active and inactive people out over as many galaxies as possible - otherwise there would only be half a dozen 25 player galaxies that were active enough to actually compete. With 10 players you have a dzoen and a quarter galaxies

.

On a side note, whatever number is chosen, i strongly believe that the number be divisible by 3 - with private packs of 3 players, you need galaxies that can easily fit them in. 12 would be fine (9 is too small, 15 is getting a little large...).

wakey · 30 May 2004, 10:15

tbh I dont agree that 15 is too large, infact in many ways I think 15 is an ideal number because of the amount of mixing it results in. After all 5 packs in a galazy not only means 5 groups mixing but also makes the chances of one alliance having a controlling share as fairly unlikly that an alliance would find 3 of its 33 packs into the same galaxy. 12 is a a workable comprimise as 4 groups of people mixing isnt bad and really you would still need 3 packs to have control although 2 would give the alliance a major hold over the galaxy.

Anything higher than 15 though is probally getting into the realms of being too big because while 15 would leave us with about 13 clusters and a 14th unfull cluster, 18 is getting to around the 11 mark , 21 is 9 and 24 is 8 (Figures based on 2k playing) So really its a balance either its 12 for the fact it gives another couple of clusters thus more targets or 15 for a better mix and less chance one alliance dominating the galaxy and I personally believe both hold their own merits and would each enhance the game in a different way

As you say though 9 is too small, there would be too little mixing and you require just two packs in a galaxy to have a majority control

Banned · 30 May 2004, 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

yikes that was a funny thread - kinda died in what, R5?

Kind of died when it was finally closed

Shoshuro · 30 May 2004, 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

Kind of died when it was finally closed

Nice avatar , jester's cap is/was a nice card :P

Karmulian · 25 Jul 2004, 23:10

A note wakey.. you can scrap the alliance communitcation thing

ah is staying as is.. unless pateam have decided to get someone new for the passport and not told me (which i doubt)

A2 · 25 Jul 2004, 23:14

We've been looking at a method of getting alliance communication in-game for next round. Exactly what form it may take isn't quite clear yet, but we're certainly looking at it.

Busted · 9 Aug 2004, 20:47

That queuing constructions thing is a good idea

JohnDoe · 28 Nov 2004, 13:47

What about payment methods?
I'm sure this is also a FAF.

I think PA should have more payment methods, not everybody has a credit card.....

6 Dec 2004, 08:59

This has most likely been suggested more then plenty of times, but i couldnt see it here:

What about a cap on the amount of ships being sent to a planet at one time. at the moment i have 13x my fleet size coming towards me, and yet i havent even reached 1 mil in score. I think that maybe a 2-4x cap would be good, that way you can still attack ppl, but it wont ruin the game for most people.

And i know some of you may think that i am just whining and that i should just be quiet, but there are alot of ppl who arent completely dedicated to this game, but enjoy playing it. And being attacked by 60k+ ships when u have about 5k isnt really appealing.

Just an opinion, love the game anyway

Gerbie · 25 Dec 2004, 12:41

Update for rnd 13 or un-sticky plz.

Ultimate Newbie · 16 Apr 2005, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by mamalk

What about a cap on the amount of ships being sent to a planet at one time. at the moment i have 13x my fleet size coming towards me, and yet i havent even reached 1 mil in score. I think that maybe a 2-4x cap would be good, that way you can still attack ppl, but it wont ruin the game for most people.

The problem with doing this is that it is feared that certain alliances will reduce or prevent their planets from coming under attack by launching fleets at them to 'max out' the attack value. ie, i know through some sneaky intel that tonight i am going to get hit badly. what my alliance does is send some fleets earlier and these prevent additional fleets (ie, the main attack) to launch. This is alot easier than sending 3-4 times the value of ships to defend. (If not people from my alliance (as attacking within your alliance is prevented, just insert block. it doesnt really matter)).

Furthermore, limiting the amount of attackers and not limited the value of defenders may be constured as being unfair.

Apparently.

lurchleaf · 9 Mar 2006, 01:01

it could be a type of "terra fuel system". or LPG used by terrans so they dont have to pay congestion charges.

SpookyVince · 2 Apr 2006, 10:23

What about these:

Ressource pods, pretty much like roids pods: ships that would act just the same, but steal ressources instead of pods.
Use of fuel in a way?
Possibly having a 4th ressource that ships would use to travel, or have the ships need some ressources to launch.
The possibility to dismantle constructions...
If you're at the max sometimes you'd like that this or that structure wouldn't exist, so you can build another one instead.

I know it won't be done for round 17, but for later then maybe? I thought I'd just throw in my ideas, good or bad.

Cheers

furball · 2 Apr 2006, 14:24

The Search function is your friend.

MrLobster · 2 Apr 2006, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

The Search function is your friend.

Which is tedious, and most of the suggestions never make it on to the above list (which isnt updated).

furball · 2 Apr 2006, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster

Which is tedious, and most of the suggestions never make it on to the above list (which isnt updated).

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=185751 is newer, written by Sovereign (Ultimate Newbie) and last updated in June 2005. Since he's less active now, it's not being updated.

Fuel was discussed in a recent thread: most sensible posters opposed its return because it encourages stagnation.

The return of cargoships ('resource pods') will be found in a thread somewhere. I quite like it because it discourages resource hoarding, but I'm not going to start searching for it.

Removing your own structures has also been discussed in the last few months, and generally opposed. Building constructions is part of a long-term strategy for your planet and the choices that you make early on inevitably affect your planet when you reach the limit.

A2 · 30 Sep 2006, 02:14

This thread either needs unstickying, or the initial post being brought up to date for it to be any use imho.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakey

Frequently Asked Features (Last Updated 13th May 2004)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PA Forums

Last edited by wakey : 28 May 2004 at 14:51

(regardless - 2 years since the last update)

Ultimate Newbie · 30 Sep 2006, 06:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=185751 is newer, written by Sovereign (Ultimate Newbie) and last updated in June 2005. Since he's less active now, it's not being updated.

That can happen again if people were actually interested in the thread again. What would be really nice, too, was if people sent a PM whenever they found a thread that was interesting, and i'd sort it by the next day.

Just a thought.

BrainPower · 17 Aug 2008, 18:35

I think we should bring back planetary defenses, like some awesome orbital platforms with turrets.

MrLobster · 1 Sep 2008, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrainPower

I think we should bring back planetary defenses, like some awesome orbital platforms with turrets.

I like necroing too, so

PDS as a Structure (ST Class), Fires First, Not as powerful as ships.

Sponge_Bob · 30 Apr 2009, 22:58

er, update thread anyone? update people who update threads anyone?

wakey · 30 Apr 2009, 23:03

The problem with updating threads like this is that as mods we haven't been allowed in the inner circle for a good few years. If PATeam won't keep you in the loop on anything there's no point sending in suggestions for feedback and as such maintaining lists is pointless as we have no official idea on their thinking