Limitations
 

Can we remove tag limits.

Can we remove donation limits.

Can we remove construction limits.

Can we remove roid limits.

Can we remove exile limits.

Can we remove fleet name limits.

Can we remove gal name limits.

Can we remove all limitations infact, and can you stop forcing shit rules you consider to be good upon us.

Re: Limitations
 

Why?

Re: Limitations
 

I suppose the point is that while the general structure of said game is fine.
Many of the limitations in certain places could be construed as an utter pain in the ....... Some of the limitations are quiet annoying when they don't just restrit some of the planets to even out race advantage etc. when they apply to everybody and don't seem to serve any real purpose it can be quite irritating .................

or so i guess
(this is not an actual view-point from Vladel himself and does not believe the above to be an actual suggestion of his own making. Vladel would also like to point out that while it may be appearing as if he would support the opening statement he would also like the following........ the above statement made by Vladel is not his own belief or the belief of any of his known associates and therefore would not appreciate replies by someone like KENNY! who cannot understand that the above is merely a translation of the opening post and not a true opinion of the author!)

Thank you.

Re: Limitations
 

Seems logical, most people play with alliance in or out of tag since the removal of the support planet rule.

Agreed.

Not a fan of this, takes away the tactics of building your planet up correctly; if this were to happen then SK's would have to be beefed up to take out more structures (as there would be > 150 on a planet)

Hell yes

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Rules are made to be broken ;)

Re: Limitations
 

I hope you're not arguing for complete removal of infrastructure researches, (if you are, I disagree with you), but rather for something I've brought up before, namely changing the upper limit of 150 to, say, 250 or 300 (which in practice comes down to infinity), by way of one or two additional researches.

As for roid limits, I personally have no problem with the HCT researches. I feel they add a strategic consideration to the game, without needlessly complicating things ("you can only mine 750 roids" is not exactly hard to understand for new players).

I assume that by exile limits, you mean the 48 tick waiting period for galaxy exiles? Can you explain why you wish to change these limits? I've not really got an opinion on this matter, so convince me. :)

I agree with the rest of your suggestions, and hope PA team have the guts to implement them.

Re: Limitations
 

The researches arent what I meant, what i meant was the limits they allow you to goto. Asin 10k roids, and 150 cons, the researches are fine.

The reason i want the limits removed is because i dont want to be told how i should play the game, I want to play it how I want to play it. Needless limits are pointless who are they actually benefitting, why should ways i can play or better yet 'strategies' not be available to me?

Re: Limitations
 

Erm, has anyone actually managed to reach 10k roids recently?

Seriously though, explain some of the limits in a bit more detail as to why you think each one would be good instead of expressing your hatred towards anything considered a limit.

Deciding just what constructions you're going to choose has strategic importance as well. Do you waste valuable slots on constructions to speed research up at the start? Or do you take the slower route for other more important things?

Re: Limitations
 

10k roids hasn't been reached since Round 14, I think.

Re: Limitations
 

Yes, please please please fix the alliance limit BS. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be shot. At minimum it needs to be 75. Don't force people to play out of tag with a silly low limit. It doesnt help smaller alliances gain members. Good players don;t want to play in crappy alliances, period.

Donation limits.. Well i think you should be able to donate way more out of the fund at a time then is currently allowed.. Donating to our lower players in my alliance, there isnt much you can buy with only 2m~ of each res every 8 ticks.. I do think that limiting it to players below the alliance average is good though.

And yeah why can't we get rid of people in our gal right away? If they aren't active then out the door. And if i get a new player at tick 800.. Out the door, why make us wait 3 days.. Yes there is an argument of training new players, but its obvious within hours if that is even possible. I am a big proponent of helping new players out, but they have to want that. So maybe a 6hour limit is more reasonable then 48/72..

Completely removing the fleet/galaxy name would be annoying.. I don't want to read a book when I have 25 incoming fleets to my planet. Keeping it short is keeping it sweet. Galaxy name could be longer though, that is major annoying.

Re: Limitations
 

There need to be some sort of fund limiting this, else alliances will donate out resources to someone that has incs, the person in question builds the same tick as he gets it (if its instant), then there is no way to see if he got resources or anything, and the attacker end up dead..

Seems like a poor solution tbh.

Re: Limitations
 

I'll take out an ad in the school newspaper for $5 asking fellow students to spend 5 minutes signing up a free account, 1 minute initting as many roids as possible a week later, and 1 minute joining my tag and donating all their res to me 100 ticks to round end. I'll lie and say every signup aids charity or something in the ad and have an alliance of a few thousand planets. I wonder if I could double, triple, or more the score of the #2 planet. Get rid of these shit rules so I can finally play how I want to instead of being forced to actually play for a decent rank.

And stein: In top heavy alliances like Urwins I can see mandatory donations for the entire ally but the resources only being used for the top 10 flagshipped planets. And that would put an end to most FCs. BUT the game would ofc be far better without any restrictions except no cheating.

Re: Limitations
 

Posting in agreement with op. If there is any need for restrictions, or a certain direction of planet development, add it as game feature instead of adding artifical rules to be "fair" and all that nonesence.

About the donation limits, isn't it more aimed at the fact you can't only donate so much within a given timeframe to a relatively small selection of planets? The fact a donation is delayed by 8 ticks i personally don't really see as restriction of the donation feature.

Re: Limitations
 

Sounds like a hilariously unrealistic scenario that will never happen but sure, let's use that as our main motivation behind game design. I also have a scenario outlined in which god comes down from heaven and smites people for building certain kinds of ships by the way.

Re: Limitations
 

Sure the numbers are bigger, but I bet greenhills is still laughing at the hilarity of such an impossibly unrealistic scenario.

Re: Limitations
 

Personally I didn't view that as a particularly unwelcome outcome in and of itself. It's hardly like anyone who has an opinion worth noting is still fascinated with planet ranks at this stage in the game. What was shit is that there were other limits in place which made it impossible to counteract. What inevitably will happen again is that someone else will be able to get around the artificial limitations that have been placed on the game.

PS Top heavy alliances where the top two planets have received 216 ally def fleets between them zebra? Although in fairness that's more a topic for AD!

Re: Limitations
 

No.

Re: Limitations
 

Why do you want that to be a viable strategy for being #1? I agree with abolishing most limitations, but some are positive for the game.

PS No, top heavy alliances where the (vast) majority of their top 100 planets are also top 20 planets. But idd save it for AD.

Re: Limitations
 

I believe, in general, it'll get more people involved with the game. It's up to pateam/designers or whoever to make the game interesting enough for the people who login once a day to look at something else and think "hey, that's cool" and actually start playing it. If we can't do that we're just prolonging the inevitable anyways.


More like 236!

Re: Limitations
 

Game designers. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Since when does Planetarion have such people?

Anyway, removing _all_ the stated limits is certainly not the way to go. Some should be removed, however. For instance, alliance member and fund limits.

Re: Limitations
 

What limits do you mean? The length? the special characters? or also the MH limits imposed like abusive language?

I agree that the length of the galaxy name is somewhat short. Other then that, i think its pretteh ok all

Re: Limitations
 

Specifically removing the ally fund limits will get more people involved with the game? I don't think I understand what you're saying, sorry.

Macaroth had more than that by himself two rounds ago; now that is truly hilarious!

Re: Limitations
 

Oh dear, comparing yourself to Macaroth is not the way to go...

Re: Limitations
 

Sigh, and here we go again, people making fun out of a player that by his own effort and activity kept many others still playing the game.

PA feeds upon itself and always have. Dont worry Macaroth is quitting after this round, and many others with him. So now you dont have to worry about him being a defsink anymore. More to worry about finding a new target instead.

Re: Limitations
 

Sorry but i tend to not attack caths, it feels like im beating up a kid when i do attack them.

Re: Limitations
 

Just in general that the more limitations that are removed the more alternatives that it is difficult to see now will open up.

In one night!

Re: Limitations
 

all of the above that you mentioned, least so the length and more so the other 2

Re: Limitations
 

Both have unique strategies, so why is having unlimited constructions better than having a cap? Also, do you want the limits of how many RLs, FCs, and SCs are effective to be abolished also? What about the upper bounds of the population sliders? Do you want me to be able to have 100% on construction?

Re: Limitations
 

It's a limit! Remove it! :p

Re: Limitations
 

I am one of those that believes that alliance limits are very much necessary.

I'm against removing all limits, but not against removing this one.
100% on construction would only double the speed. It's the mining bonus that should be tweaked however (as suggested elsewhere).

Re: Limitations
 

why not?

Re: Limitations
 

Click

And again

Re: Limitations
 

Better yet, allow us to put 150% of our population on constructions!

Re: Limitations
 

Alki and you are on the same page with everything Mzyxptlk?

OK I've thought about the 150 cap, and abolishing it, and the pros outweigh the cons. My greater than normal activity somewhat biases my opinion though, and for the whole of PA a cap at 150 is probably a little better. Having thought about population caps, the verdict is still out.

But really how many unique styles are there in PA nowadays? In the examples you gave, really all of them apply best to the traditional value based planet except the construction example, which specifically mentioned 'scanner or distwhore'. The few styles that exist would certainly diverge more (a plus in my eyes, though I'd rather different types of military/traditional planets diverge more rather than the gap between scanners, dist whores, value whores, etc grow wider), but in the current setup I think it's unbalanced to which styles benefit most. Having said that, a bonus side effect would be new styles would likely appear, and though likely less powerful than existing strategies, would definitely make the game more interesting and fun (the most important thing). I'm not entirely convinced this is the best thing for PA, but it couldn't hurt to try it for a round and see.

And what about the FC/SC/RL effective % caps? 250 finance centers with 100% mining population, wowzers! I cba to think if that would be cost effective though; I think only construction based styles would go much over 150.