User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 01:28   #1
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
construction limits for distorters

I know that there is no limit on how many finance centers you build but more that 60 is pointless because there is no added benefit.

Why can't there be something similar for distorters? Say like anything above 140 has no added effect so that a scanner with 141 amps could scan that planet.

The reason I put this suggestion forward is we found a planet in r 17 with 149 distorters. I think scanners should be able to build all ships types and not have to sacrifice everything about playing the game to be scanner.

I think 140-145 should be the limit of effectiveness for wave distorters.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 01:37   #2
Dr_Zaius
Registered User
 
Dr_Zaius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Shropshire, England
Posts: 148
Dr_Zaius has a spectacular aura aboutDr_Zaius has a spectacular aura about
Re: construction limits for distorters

I disagree, if you can always be scanned by quite a lot of people whats the point of having that many distorters?

It's a recognised game tactic, as a scanner you can do the same as they muct be doing and have only 1 shiptype, it's your choice!
__________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools

Dr_Zaius - Planetarion Support Team Member
Dr_Zaius is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 01:46   #3
Dotatrix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 360
Dotatrix has a spectacular aura aboutDotatrix has a spectacular aura about
Re: construction limits for distorters

So the dist whore didn't sacrifice anything when making 149 dists?
__________________
R 11 [noob]
R 12 [NoS]
R 13 [Didn't play]
R 14 [VsN] ---> [xVx]
R 15-17 [xVx]
R 18 [eXilition] Semi-retired half round
Dotatrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 04:58   #4
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotatrix
So the dist whore didn't sacrifice anything when making 149 dists?
I am sure they did. Point is that the distorter whore does it for themselves but scanners build amps for their alliances. This honestly won't effect me much cause I never build that many structures anyway but I am just looking out for the scanners out there that are tired of having to sacrifice everything for the good of others.

Since Pig's idea of a second planet just for scanning is not feasible I thought this was the more probable solution. Just depends on community acceptance and debate on when enough distorters is enough.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 05:10   #5
rain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 127
rain can only hope to improve
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
I know that there is no limit on how many finance centers you build but more that 60 is pointless because there is no added benefit.

Why can't there be something similar for distorters? Say like anything above 140 has no added effect so that a scanner with 141 amps could scan that planet.

The reason I put this suggestion forward is we found a planet in r 17 with 149 distorters. I think scanners should be able to build all ships types and not have to sacrifice everything about playing the game to be scanner.

I think 140-145 should be the limit of effectiveness for wave distorters.
Do you listen to what you're saying?
On one side, we have the planets dedicated to scan purposes only(hard to believe a planet who builds 149 amps has any other important goal in the round but to scan, and regular planet, who chooses to sacrifice 149 buildings, having one factory only, no financial bonuses, no scaning options or anything.
I have a request also. STFU and someone please close this thread. The reason I put this suggestion forward is we found a planet in r 17 with 149 amplifiers. I think too scanners should be able to build all ships types and not have to sacrifice everything about playing the game to be scanner. So ask your scanner next round to build all ship types, it'll give a chance for distorters to pay off, as it seems distorters are inefficient, good as inexistant or whatever(you find the best comparison term) as long as there are planets that can scan someone, in fact anyone who sacrifices 149 buildings to distorters and who is still scannable. Fair enough?
__________________
on the bench
rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 05:49   #6
rain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 127
rain can only hope to improve
Re: construction limits for distorters

wait, wait, i have a better one
make scanning posible only if the number of amps is bigger than the number of dist
or really remove distorters, since it seems no one can posibly go unscannable, so what's the point in building them?
__________________
on the bench
rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 06:09   #7
Ultimate Newbie
Commodore
 
Ultimate Newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
Ultimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: construction limits for distorters

Someone with 149 Jammers wont have much in the way of a diverse fleet (eg, can only build CR/BA, FR/DE or FI/CO), and as such it is possible for SKs to get through and do some real damage to their Jammers.

Similarly, a player with 149 Jammers would be quite a long way behind everyone else in terms of resources and so on (due to mining bonuses, financial centres, Refineries and the like), not to mention very vulnerable to Covert Ops (even with Security at P1, i would imagine you could get through fairly often with them).

The only way a planet with 149 Jammers would be able to do well is by being force-fed by their alliance through the alliance fund, escorted on raids, being only able to target specific planets with their limited fleet, etc etc.

Additionally, a planet with 149 amps will be able to scan them, as Jammers only stop X-1 Amp (eg, 149-1 = 148 Amps would be stopped).

Additionally, the colossal cost of building that many Jammers (it has been worked out elsewhere) plus the opportunity cost of forgone resources is unbelieveable. I say, good on 'em. If a player wants to spend that much cash, time and effort on being unscannable, at the cost of having an effective fleet and falling behind in the ranks, then that's ok with me - as there are alternatives (ie, SK and Covert Ops) to such a situation. Plus, imagine the drain that planet would place on their alliance...
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
Ultimate Newbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 10:13   #8
Aragno
xVx techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 52
Aragno will become famous soon enoughAragno will become famous soon enough
Re: construction limits for distorters

Why ruin a valid strategy? It's not like it very common to have close to that number of amps. Personally I'd think that a scanner can have all factories and still scan any planet even the 149 dist planets. All you need is some cov ops.
Aragno is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 18:11   #9
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: construction limits for distorters

I think people are being overly critical of the idea myself - I think the motivation here is to remove one of the uses of a dedicated scan planet which may actually be a good thing. Building distorters would sitll most likely protect people from unorganised attacks etc.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 18:21   #10
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: construction limits for distorters

I agree with Kal, the idea is an interesting one, and if your going to limit distorters, why not go a step further and limit amps? Why not limit the effectiveness of both, making scanners a less specialized position (which is how the game used to be). I can't see how it would really hurt the game much. There was a day in this game before hardcore scanners were needed, and no one complained. Returning to that model wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 19:43   #11
rain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 127
rain can only hope to improve
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
I think people are being overly critical of the idea myself - I think the motivation here is to remove one of the uses of a dedicated scan planet which may actually be a good thing. Building distorters would sitll most likely protect people from unorganised attacks etc.
wrong
I already advice ppl not to go full distorters for next round, even before reading this thread, as playing the last rounds I noticed there are more and more planets that go full amps, hence distorters efficiency is lower and lower by the round. Plus, most of you are subjective. You're against distorter planets why? Because you don't like getting that message saying you need more amps? Honestly, how many of you tryed going full distorters in a regular round? Or even full amps. I'd say few, close to zero. Well, I tryed it and it's not easy. Other friends of mine did it as well. It resource sucking. You barelly have resources left to build ships. Not to mention the effort to be only every 4-5-6 hours to build another construction. You're just a bunch of whiners, afraid of real challanges and if it's to limit the number of distorters, you may as well remove them completly, like I said before, limit them to 140, then all scanners will build 140 amps, and distorters will lose their efficiency, no one will build those anymore. Sadly, PA rules are changed or "improved" sometimes by a bunch of sunday players.
__________________
on the bench
rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 20:13   #12
Mighteh
Your typical Troll
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 414
Mighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these parts
Re: construction limits for distorters

tbh, i agree with rain.
Building "scan proof" planet is too much of a sacrifice that, ultimatly, does not pay off in the span of the round.
And lets look at a bigger picture and set aside the differences of pawns involved. The biggest struggle in the round, the most important, fun, etc thing in the round is the fight between big alliances. ANY big alliance will have a plethora of dedicated scanners. Those who will set aside their personal well being in PA for the greater good of entire alliance. (And <3 all the Omen scanners r17 for that, rain included). As the number of these people increase, the importance of Distorter as a structure reduce to 0. I think during entire r17, for all the scanning needs i had 2 ticks when i couldnt get a scan on a planet, due to massive amount of distorters built. And thats only due to the fact that all the scanners were offline (so i dont even know if i should count it or not) Limiting amount of distorters is a move not only equal to their complete removal from the game, but also just a crapload wasted time rewriting lines of code. Most people limit themselves with 3-4 distorters throughout the round to reduce the amount of "casual" scans. Which still works and next round I, aswell, plan to build about 3-4, maybe 5 distorters. And thats just cause i am your average peon, maybe somewhat subpar (didnt even make it to top 100), On an alliance scale of looking at it, it should not, and probably isnt, promoted to build distorters, as negatives hugely outweigh positives as is.

This thread actually puzzles me... It sounds, briefly, something like, "lets take something that does not work and nerf it, for some reason"

My vote: remove distorter/amp system of scanning and, perhaps, implement something completly different (like chance of a scan succeeding depending on score/value/size (?) ration of scanner vs scanned with flexible scale that allows increase in price of scan for higher probability of a scan) If someone can somehow figgure out a decent way to make it work that is (and yes, thats a whole lot more coding, but at least we get somewhat of a different system of blocking scans, increase pressure on alliance members to donate to fund, (with rules in place making support planets non-beneficial, and even harmfull for alliance).
====================================================

Distorters dont really work, they never had. If you wanna change that, bring in a whole new system. But let useless things rest in peace. Nerfing distorters is ridiculous.
__________________
[Destiny] awaits, ex-[Omen]
Nothing on the top
but the bucket and the mop
And an illustrated book about birds
See alot up there
But dont be scared
who needs action, when you got words....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbg
reading this line is explicit acceptance of my superiority over you
Mighteh is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 20:48   #13
K-W
Bored
 
K-W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
K-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond repute
Re: construction limits for distorters

I didn't play last round, but the round before scan-proofing yourself most certainly did work. The planet in my galaxy that scan-proofed himself got much less incoming during the round and I remember how difficult it was to launch attacks on galaxies with high distorters.

Most scan planets arent playing with 100% activity, so if you are a regular player, super active, there will likely only be a handful of people in the entire universe who can scan you and that does make a big difference.

On a more general note, I really wish we could have a scan system that involved some strategy, but did not neccessitate scan planets. It seems obvious to me that the existance of scan planets betrays the fundemental unworkability of the current system. To be able to get scans you shouldnt have to convince a friend to play an assitant planet.

I think theres lots of different ways you could approach scans and we should think about a different approach rather than overcomplicating the current system.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
K-W is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 22:56   #14
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
I think people are being overly critical of the idea myself - I think the motivation here is to remove one of the uses of a dedicated scan planet which may actually be a good thing.
No, the idea is out of pure self-interest because of his dissatisfaction with being unable to scan those who put the time and effort into building mass distorters. It costs over 11 million resources to build 149 distorters - a huge drain on your planet because you can't invest those resources in the equivalent ships.

A scanner has one focus: building amps and researching scans in order to scan for his alliance. Rank is immaterial.

A distorter builder has two focuses: building distorters to become practically unscannable, and using that advantage to finish at least top 100 if not top 10/20.



I'm not against changing the scan system, but if we do so then we need to change it completely rather than making silly little 'refinements' which serve little purpose except to further punish activity and skill.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 23:33   #15
Spritfire
Registered User
 
Spritfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 367
Spritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really nice
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie
Additionally, a planet with 149 amps will be able to scan them, as Jammers only stop X-1 Amp (eg, 149-1 = 148 Amps would be stopped).
You need the same amount of amps as there is jammers to scan the target.
__________________
NewDawn - Soaring where angels fear to fly
Spritfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jun 2006, 23:48   #16
Ultimate Newbie
Commodore
 
Ultimate Newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
Ultimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spritfire
You need the same amount of amps as there is jammers to scan the target.
If you read what i said; that up to 148 amps would be blocked, by implication 149 or more amps would not be blocked, thus making your post superflous.
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
Ultimate Newbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jun 2006, 01:52   #17
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighteh

My vote: remove distorter/amp system of scanning and, perhaps, implement something completly different (like chance of a scan succeeding depending on score/value/size (?) ration of scanner vs scanned with flexible scale that allows increase in price of scan for higher probability of a scan) If someone can somehow figgure out a decent way to make it work that is (and yes, thats a whole lot more coding, but at least we get somewhat of a different system of blocking scans, increase pressure on alliance members to donate to fund, (with rules in place making support planets non-beneficial, and even harmfull for alliance).
Something like this is how scans used to work. A scans chance of success was based mostly on the number of roids you had verses the number of roids your target for the scan had, with a certain random chance that you would be blocked or get through regardless.

In response to rain, I still agree with Kal, and yes I have built to 145 amps or more all of the last three rounds so I understand the resource drain. This is why I suggested perhaps limiting both amps and distorters, rather then just distorters. Personally I like the fact that no one is ever 100% protected against scans.

Side suggestion: I believe something like this has been suggested before, but what if scanning was more like covert ops in the sense that scans no longer cost specific amounts, but the more you spend the greater the chance of success where amps and distorters increase and decrease your chance (and therefore cost). This would prevert anyone from being 100% scan proof, but could make him hideously expensive to get through on. Conversely scanners still have a place in allies because they will be the most cost effective conduit for doing scans for the alllies because of their high amp numbers.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jun 2006, 05:31   #18
Mighteh
Your typical Troll
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 414
Mighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these parts
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
In response to rain, I still agree with Kal, and yes I have built to 145 amps or more all of the last three rounds so I understand the resource drain. This is why I suggested perhaps limiting both amps and distorters, rather then just distorters. Personally I like the fact that no one is ever 100% protected against scans.
Imho, that would make Ziks extremly overpowered. A huge (say top 10) zik, which there always will be some, will NEVER get a decent enough of an incoming, Unless thoroughly checked by his BReps that they somehow other then scanning aquired... I am not even gonna mention the benefits of fake attacks, defs etc that those Ziks could, potentially, make.

If the goal is, indeed, to ever achieve that "rock, paper, scissors" ballance, that distorter limiting rule simply cannot be implemented without completly destroying the specific ability of an entire race.
__________________
[Destiny] awaits, ex-[Omen]
Nothing on the top
but the bucket and the mop
And an illustrated book about birds
See alot up there
But dont be scared
who needs action, when you got words....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbg
reading this line is explicit acceptance of my superiority over you
Mighteh is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jun 2006, 06:37   #19
rain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 127
rain can only hope to improve
Re: construction limits for distorters

ever considered cov ops?
a planet with no(zero) security centers is not cov op proof
why bother, right? limiting things is easier
__________________
on the bench
rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jun 2006, 06:48   #20
DunkelGraf
Drunken Boozer
 
DunkelGraf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 298
DunkelGraf is a splendid one to beholdDunkelGraf is a splendid one to beholdDunkelGraf is a splendid one to beholdDunkelGraf is a splendid one to beholdDunkelGraf is a splendid one to beholdDunkelGraf is a splendid one to beholdDunkelGraf is a splendid one to beholdDunkelGraf is a splendid one to behold
Re: construction limits for distorters

Why do people always want to have more/new rules/limitations????
If someone wants to build dists, let him do so....

We already got too many rules and stuff
__________________
Geilheit ist KEINE Schande !!!!

! [ToT]-KC !

Äscendäncy, we got Penis inside!
DunkelGraf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jun 2006, 18:55   #21
K-W
Bored
 
K-W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
K-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond reputeK-W has a reputation beyond repute
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by DunkelGraf
Why do people always want to have more/new rules/limitations????
If someone wants to build dists, let him do so....

We already got too many rules and stuff
Some people dont think the game is perfect as-is I guess...
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
K-W is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jun 2006, 01:37   #22
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
ever considered cov ops?
a planet with no(zero) security centers is not cov op proof
why bother, right? limiting things is easier
I wanted to get a feel for community reaction to such an Idea. I kinda like the idea Monroe suggested of making scans amps/dist similiar to covert ops.

R2 had very few rules by comparison today with no limits for distorters or amps but then again really big planets were untouchable with ships or scans.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jun 2006, 07:10   #23
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: construction limits for distorters

The need for a distorter planet is made out of the need fo a scan planet - if the need for a can planet is rmeoved then the need for a distroter planet is removed.

Personally I think the pre-pax scan system was better with distorters and amps merly effecting the probabaility that a scan would go through r\ther than the absolute system we have now.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 Jun 2006, 22:29   #24
Spritfire
Registered User
 
Spritfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 367
Spritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really niceSpritfire is just really nice
Re: construction limits for distorters

if we limit disorters, the fa scan wount get usefull anymore.
planets that use their resourches to build disorters , use loads of time on it. if you remove that, everyone will just build say 70 amps ( max disorters is 69 ) and then everyone can fa scan who evers attacks you.

Whats the fun in that ?
some of the strategy will disapear forever, how can you trick ppl when they allways know what you are sending , atleast if they are up to scan you.

Disorter planets are a pain in the ass , but they are something of this game. We need people to guess what they send, there need to be something exited with this.

Would it be fun to dc if you allways knew what was comming ? :\ Guessing and trying with a bcalc is half the fun, even tho it ends with you losing your ships. its a WAR game.
__________________
NewDawn - Soaring where angels fear to fly
Spritfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Jun 2006, 02:15   #25
Pilatus
Registered User
 
Pilatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 295
Pilatus has a spectacular aura aboutPilatus has a spectacular aura about
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
I know that there is no limit on how many finance centers you build but more that 60 is pointless because there is no added benefit.

Why can't there be something similar for distorters? Say like anything above 140 has no added effect so that a scanner with 141 amps could scan that planet.

The reason I put this suggestion forward is we found a planet in r 17 with 149 distorters. I think scanners should be able to build all ships types and not have to sacrifice everything about playing the game to be scanner.

I think 140-145 should be the limit of effectiveness for wave distorters.
I were a scanner last round, but choosed to build 1 of each factories. A bit for ego purposed, but also to be able to help deffing allies by deffing with mantis. Preffered mantis and scorpions for def. Anyway since i were a cath, there would be no way for me to keep up with distwhores until late in the round.

My question is why shouldn't a distwhore be able to get a benefit on my decisions, if i'm the only scanner online he's attacking. After all he's sacrificing things like finance centers too.

I agree that distwhores might be a bit more ego then being a scanner, but atleast it forces other allies scanners to build more amps to keep up. And i think it should be up to allies to allow ppl to distwhores or not.

Wouldn't like it, but think if there should be a limit, then it should be about equal for each cons then. Finance factories whores usually gain more then dist/scan whores anyway, but for ppl in crappy alliances/gals distwhoring might be more useful then finance center whoring. Might not sound logical, but i think it should be up to players what to focus on what cons to build, and not try to force them to build a certain amount by changing the rules.
Pilatus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Jun 2006, 13:45   #26
The Real Arfy
Registered User
 
The Real Arfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,081
The Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: construction limits for distorters

The only thing I would change for the way distortering works is to make a new research, in between say, surface and tech scans before wave distorters can be built.

However, I think its perfectly fine, and would argue against implementing that idea.
__________________
Dynamic Salvage!

[16:10:34] <[lfc]stif|afk> "dont be the worst in your alliance, join CT. We have Arfy!"
The Real Arfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Jun 2006, 16:48   #27
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real Arfy
The only thing I would change for the way distortering works is to make a new research, in between say, surface and tech scans before wave distorters can be built.
This is really a neat idea. This would mean that people that like to build alot of distorters would be delayed. Don't think this would be accepted though.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Jun 2006, 17:00   #28
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
I know that there is no limit on how many finance centers you build but more that 60 is pointless because there is no added benefit.

Why can't there be something similar for distorters? Say like anything above 140 has no added effect so that a scanner with 141 amps could scan that planet.

The reason I put this suggestion forward is we found a planet in r 17 with 149 distorters. I think scanners should be able to build all ships types and not have to sacrifice everything about playing the game to be scanner.

I think 140-145 should be the limit of effectiveness for wave distorters.
I dont agree. if someone wants to have 149 distorters they should be able to. Going for distorters is an perfectly okay strategy if that's what you want.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 27 Jul 2006, 05:36   #29
Ultimate Newbie
Commodore
 
Ultimate Newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
Ultimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: construction limits for distorters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
I dont agree. if someone wants to have 149 distorters they should be able to. Going for distorters is an perfectly okay strategy if that's what you want.
So why is building 149 Finance Centres (that work) not ok if you wanted to do it?
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
Ultimate Newbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 27 Jul 2006, 15:41   #30
Mighteh
Your typical Troll
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 414
Mighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these partsMighteh is infamous around these parts
Re: construction limits for distorters

my god, were still discussing this deadbeat topic ?
__________________
[Destiny] awaits, ex-[Omen]
Nothing on the top
but the bucket and the mop
And an illustrated book about birds
See alot up there
But dont be scared
who needs action, when you got words....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbg
reading this line is explicit acceptance of my superiority over you
Mighteh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018