Shortening Prelaunch
 

While prelaunch is often helpful and necessary - especially for defence ingal, for example - it probably doesn't need to be quite so long.
Ingal prelaunch doesn't need to be more than 5-6 ticks.
Fake attack doesn't need to be shortened - people can still use that to keep their fleet safe overnight, perhaps - but we could also shorten attack prelaunch down to say 2-3 ticks. This means people can be on at "peak" time and launch just after it, but it does force them to be on more for attacks, and stops them launching later at night without getting up to give defence (which is necessary for alliances to do well).

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

good thing :)

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

3/4 ticks of prelaunch should suffice to be honest so people who only use prelaunch and don't play the game as it was intended don't get too much of an advantage:D

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

because it is coded, it is by default the one of the intended ways of playing it. And for the hardcore players it doesnt mattermuch anyway, so no disadvantage there (hardcore players win over preset players anyways, usually)

Also

Why change it to lower? For those who play casual or those who do not wanna not die if they have certain lengthy RL obligations (longer then healthy for your account), its pretty nice to preset so you dont do battle unwanted at your home planet.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

The fake attack prelaunch will still be at full length, so there is still the option of prelaunching your fleet for the "normal" length of time. However, prelaunch for defence isn't really necessary, and prelaunch for attack means that while you can get some benefit from prelaunch still.

The problem is that while the full prelaunch gives huge benefits to the casual player for attacking at night, it also encourage inactivity in alliances, which then fall apart over time due to bad defence activity

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

By appo, isnt inactiveness of alliances members in (mostly) attacks a combination of smart attack setup in your channels and enforcing discipline?

If you want to prevent prelaunching real attacks for members, then dont release target claiming until 1 tick before attack or something. And you cud let scanner jgp targets to check for preset fleets.

Im not against shortening real attackpresets persé, but your reason isnt the real problem i think. The real problem is (i think), that a lot of players cant stand it that other players like to attack preset and then goto sleep, while they miss out on all the sleep.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

This is *so* obviously wrong its unbelieveable. Indeed, i would be almost certain that prelaunch is used for defence a hell of alot more than for attacks - as often prelaunch for one or two ticks for universal defence and prelaunch for four or more ticks for in-gal defence are extrodinarily common - DCing would effectively be made an order of magnitude more difficult without it.

Also, the most obvious way to run your fleet away for as long as possible is to set your fleet for 12 hours in defend, which then takes universal travel time to get somewhere, then uni TT - 1 back. Any attack, including fake attacks (as the defender obviously doesnt know if it is fake) is a hostile action, and thus makes the player a legitimate target for retal which kinda defeats the purpose of trying to save your fleet anyway. Also, sending in defence on some random planet not in 1:1 isnt likely to get your fleet killed, where it would in attack etc.

a 3 tick (or so) prelaunch for attack is fine with me, but leave defence the hell alone.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

what's the aim of this suggestion?

if it's to make it so you need to be more active to play, fair enough - tho i thought you wanted the opposite.

otherwise, the main effect i can see would be to make those alliances that you're talking about falling apart have to set up their attacks to be earlier so that their members can prelaunch for them - surely making them more likely to get defended. how does this help in any way?

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I meant "any more than 5-6 ticks isn't needed" - for paid planets vs paid planets, after the first week at most, anything is eta 9.

Yes, but I've seen fleets land in 1:1 with defence with attacks the same time. The safest thing to do is fake attack, assuming it's 1:1 or someone that won't take offense and retal you.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

All this suggestion does is to make activity even more useful than it was before. I am absolutly opposed to it and would be very disheartened if the old 'hardcore' players manage to force its return. Pre-launch was one of the best things instituted in PaX, because it opened the game up to so many more people - those who can't stay up until 3/4am, or can't get up in the middle of the night to attack.

Pre-launch has allowed smaller alliances to be more effective because their members are able to attack together properly. If we got rid of it, the universe would be again dominated by the top 3/4 alliances with the smaller alliances a long long way behind.

Not pre-launching still has its benefits, because people often jgp themselves before they go to bed. This is why I've always told VGN members to only pre-launch their attacks when they have to go to bed, and no sooner - certainly no pre-launching on claiming a target.


Just remember: the forum users are in general the more active, more hardcore players. The casual gamers whose planets depend on pre-launch aren't really represented except by conscientious alliance leaders such as Wakey. So - remember the little guy, the person your target got their roids off. The universe is one big roid chain, with the roids moving up from the smaller planets to the bigger ones. If it's harder for the smaller ones to attack for roids, then the bigger players will have fewer roids to get anyway.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I disgaree, I think all settings for attack and fake attack should allways be the same - for what I hope are obvious reasons involving repeated jpgs of planets

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I tend to agree with furball, I can't see how shortening prelaunch times adds anything to the game, and it is potentially fatal to limited activity players. If allies are having activity problems they do have ways to enforce greater activity on their own, they don't need help from the PATeam. I havn't heard any complaints from players about prelaunch being to long, so why mess with it? Unless someone can come up with a compelling reason to change this feature, I say don't fix what ain't broke.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Have you considered the bash limit? If you send out your fleet so it won't die at base you'll send your fleet on a defence mission to somebody in 1:1 or somebody like the people in 1:1 that obviously aren't playing pa anyway. if you can only fake attack & grow big in value, you'll only be able to attack somebody who is actually playing, has an alliance, will get def & might get you retalled.

so plz leave the defence prelaunch :)

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

i agree with furball.

leave the prelaunch options as they are now, as they're an advantage for the less active players / alliances, and are not too much of a disadvantage for the hyperactives. If you more or less limit the game to the hardcore gamers by narrowing the prelaunch timeframe, we'll propably quickly lose the nubs/less active ones and the impact of the 'smaller' (read: less active alliances) on the gameflow will again come close to 0 (as it was before). i am pretty sure that such a development will prevent you from meeting your objectives regarding the number of players you want to have in the future.
as a side effect, the harcore gamers wont find much to feed their roidhungry pods with, leaving them frustrated pilots travelling through the ever shrinking universe on a quest for precious, rare roids that (after a few hundred ticks) are mostly owned by the top alliances, which will again make some frustrated players quitting pa.

worst case scenario? certainly, but to some extend predictable. are you willing to risk it?

activity is an internal issue of the alliances, and they're very well capable of defining their requirements, monitoring their members and to take disciplinary action if required, so there's no need for any hardcoded features to 'enhance activity', i.e. limiting the game to the hyperactives.
you should rather see how you could make the game attractive to the less actives and n00bs. the hardcore players/alliances will always rule the universe, i got no doubt there. the trick is to make *the others* have some fun despite the fact that they won't win the round.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Posting to disagree with Appoc.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

why shortening the prelaunch?
I would say if you allow more prelaunching, you will have more players that have fun to play because they can set their fleets on missions to attack and dont have to be online at the tick they launch. turing it arround would mean shortening the prelaunch means more activity means more will quit because they dont want to play that active (active in the meaning of being on as close to 24/7 as possible)

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

No thanks, I'd like to be able to run PA around my life, not the other way around.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I tried this - but 1:1 were all below my bash limit and I didn't notice the little message as Iw as in a rush and my fleet was pwned.
If you are value-heavy and need to run, you won't have many targs who are in your bash limit (your alliance mates & enemy alliances). You can't fake attack alliancemates, you may get fleetcaught for attacking an enemy.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

yea, i fully agree here.

the game needs more bandwith to attract inacitve or semi-inactives (like me). If you are active and able to be on at night you got big advantages anyway.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Send defense to 1:1 then. If they're under your bashlimit, no one big is going to attack them...

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I'm sorry, I don't understand. You've told us why you yourself don't need to set a fleet 12 hours in advance, but why exactly do you want that removed as an option to others?

I use it. For example; If I'm going out for a while and not going to be able to check my account, I put my ships into a fake attack fleet set in prelaunch, that way I have (12 + 9 + 9 = 30) hours of time to not worry about someone bjorking all my ships :p

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I like the long prelaunch in all honesty. When I have to work an entire day (which happens once a week) I like to put my fleet in prelaunch, forgot it twice and paid the price for it. But 11 hours barely makes it, when I get home I sometimes only have 1 tick of prelaunch left, so shortening it, no thank you.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

comming from a position of vast ignorance on this prelaunch mlarkey, if i get up at 8, say, and send my fleet in defence of 1:1:1 at 7 hours eta, i get back from work at 6pm, so couldn't recall it. doesn't that mean my fleet'll be gone for 15 hours (7 hours there, 1 tick fighting, 7 hours back) and therefore not be ready untill 11pm, by which point i'm getting ready for bed and therefore can be pulped overnight instead?

then again, if the main reason for having 12 hour prelaunch is this kinda thing, surely it'd make more sense to have another base fleet slot, in which the ships are hidden? that would achieve the same thing as people seem to be doing with prelaunch, without all the fuss?

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

The biggest complaint against this idea seems to be that it'll be harder to keep ships safe on defence prelaunch. As for using fake attacks to keep ships safe, that's just silly. Apart from the risks of being fleet caught on the way back in retel for a preceived attack, how p*ssed-off is everyone going to get with hundreds of fake attack missions flying around at random all the time? I'm sure DCs will get fed-up with it very quickly if it suddenly becomes the only way to keep ships safe for extended periods.
I'm with mist, if you really do want to shorten prelaunch, then add "stand down" orders to the base fleet, which stops them taking part in battles at your planet.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

lol hunk... your first and last sentence was sensible, but the rest of that was complete twaddle. 1 in 1000 attacks gets fleet caught and the DCs can really just suck my cock, I couldn't care less if they have to deal with my fake attack - that's what their job is!

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

this will have bad effects on the so called smaller alliances or "prelaunch-masters". Some alliances do depend on this and would love to see it extended (i.e. +14 or +16 even)
shortening the prelaunch will mean smaller alliances dying will mean less players. if you want to go this way - do it and you will see players quitting.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

They seem to be quite content with dwindling player numbers frostbeule... their inaction is a reflection of the large majority of europeans here. sad, i agree.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

The leaders of xVx and TGV are the ones that seem to like it the most.
I think the problem is that the top alliances generally get a lot of people playing and attacking, but the middle alliances try to and a lot of people use prelaunch instead as its there - which they want to stop.
The smaller alliances obviously use it a lot as they physically can't get online.
I guess it was trying to fix a problem that is more an alliance issue.

I'm not quite sure what you meant, especially the second half of your comment. I do believe you were throwing rocks at "us", though.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Indeed I was ;) Europeans have a general characteristic of pacifism which can sometimes be unhealthy... this is just what I observe.

i think you make a decent point about the prelaunching in alliances, but if you think what the alternative is (no prelaunch) and the effect it would have on the game (drastically changing the players' flexibility and life style, which would be very unattractive to alot of people) I think its a no-go.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I'm not quite sure what you've settled on here, but as I see things:

1) hardcore players (cypher) would like pre-launch to be removed as it would make their lives easier.
2) less hardcore players (jester) want it to stay because they're not willing to devote their lives to PA. They have the skill, and pre-launch allows them to compete.
3) most alliances are opposed to this (spectrum of alliances - LCH, VGN, smaller alliances).


So I can't see any reason for a change. Quite why xVx or TGV support a change is beyond me, and perhaps they should take a long hard look at themselves and ask why they want to kill PA.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Agreed. Thats really what it comes down to and therefore the discussion of removing pre-launch shoudld come to an end.

althought an interesting thought was made in this thread about the possible "stand down" fleet setting which would disengage based fleets from combat. this is certainly more viable... any further ideas/thoughts on this?

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

furball is right - it comes down to how alliances play and if players want their lives decided by PA or PA decided by their lives (maybe wrong english, but i hope understandable - free translated from german)

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Fake attack???
I am 5m score and to keep my ships safe over night i am going to fake attack a planet who is on a good avg score himself and get butt fooked by his alliance or someone in his gal telling there alliance who is against mine because i cant fake attack 1.1 anymore coz they is damn to small.
Fake attack is more offensive than defence and can cause a problem you dont need and there is no restrictions to defending who you want on defend oh and you can defend your own gal also.

Shorten fake attack and attack pre launch and keep defence pre launch how it is.
Pre-launching an attack to early is just damn lazy +6 seems reasonable enough for pre launching an attack.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

if it aint broken dont try fixing it

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Cause they got too many Zik players complaining about not getting enough fleet catches.

Fake attacks even on 1:1 are likely to tie up defenders and cause a retal or fleet catch.

If you are going to shorten the prelaunch times then increase the attacking ticks. This is not a trade that everyone could agree too I'm sure.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

could also make it easier and say that americans hardly need to use it as they are up at that time anyways. so it's easy for you guys regardless.


don't have to remove it all together, but make it a couple of hours less wouldn't hurt imo. What people in my opinion don't understand is that even tho it makes life alot easier for the attackers it makes it even more hard for the defenders. As most of the people on here know it's the small players that most often get attacked and surely with the use of prelaunch. Those players can't/won't get on at 3 at night so they are bashed. However if those incs turn up at 23:00 they might actually be able to do something about it.
and for the record i use prelaunch aswell:D

Also instead of blaming alliances like TGV for killing the game have you actually ever thought about it from a small alliance point of view? instead of simply your own?
Small alliances will now ALWAYS get MASS incs in the middle of the night due to prelaunch which they will need to def against but they simply can't as they lack the activity at those times. now you might think prelaunch is all good and it is from an attacking point of view. However from a defensive point of view it's far far worse and for smaller and more inactive people it makes their lives alot harder.

For me personally i can't care much as i'll get my share of incomings anyways. So i'm not saying this for myself. Think about that

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

cypher you said that they get attacked at night...this is just a thought..but you could have ticks slower juring the night and faster juring the day....well that even work...if not i will stop talking...

i know i can't spell...

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

The key thing is that most players, especially in smaller alliances, enjoy attacking more than defending. Naturally there are some exceptions, but those are the ones that prove the rule.

Are you sure that it's the small players who get most often attacked? Looking on Sandmans at who got roided the most (ticks-wise, not roids lost), it's fairly evenly spread between top 500 players and bottom 1000 players.
http://www.sandmans.co.uk/?p=rankpla...ed&order2=DESC
I'd say that likelihood of being roided depends on your galaxy, not on your activity.

Quotes from smaller alliances:
Just a selection out of the smaller alliances (by activity level).

I'm sure you will, and I'm sure that you are. However, I think you're wrong.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

if you make it 5 ticks you could simply say prelaunch + 5 then 5 ticks travel to a planet ingal + 3 return which makes it 13 ticks meaning it's longer as it is now.. if you think like that then 2 of those comments you quoted don't matter anymore... Also those were a few players in smaller alliances maybe, however does that go for the entire alliance or just the few irc active ones which as you said yourself aren't really the inactive people of pa. As you also said yourself 2 small alliances vote in favour of shortening which you conveniently didn't quote

anyways, nothing will get changed regardless so i can't be bothered to reply any more here really

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Personally I liked the ability to pre launch miles in advance, If I was going out in the morning and was going ot be out all day I could set and attack ready to go that night.

It also left the surprise of when i got in of weather it had all gone terribly wrong or worked :p

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I'll add this suggestion to the list of worst PA suggestions ever.

Cypher and Appocomaster, why exactly would it be good for the game to shorten or remove prelaunch? It's just like saying "let's get rid off the alliance limit", in the end there's nothing good such a change would do.

Ok, so top alliances are likely to get less incoming a night without prelaunch, as less people of the smaller alliances are likely to be around. But the casual player won't benefit from it, he'll launch when he is awake and without prelaunch that is very likely to be at a time when a lot of fleets are available to defend against him, thus rendering his gaming experience pretty bad, even if he should be in an alliance.

It's not going to help the game getting new players, really.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

an example
lets have a look at a not-so-active player. he sets it at 20gmt with prelaunch 9+8 for an attack, then he will be off for 14h (next login from work/uni, as everything he can do atm is done). Its 10gmt now. his ships are still eta 3 at that time. No def canbe seen, so he carryes on. landing at 13gmt. they are at base at 21?gmt. just a quick check is done at home, settinng things, and a new attack. with prelaunch again.

Now we shorten the prelaunch to +5. Means eta is 5+8 = 13. => he has to be up longer in order to not landing blind. if he wants to be able to check, he needs to land at 11gm (internet access at 10gmt first time) =>launching at 22gmt. if the day was exhausting he wants to sleep at that time to be able to get up at 6gmt to be able to go to school/job/uni(well maybe not at uni, but i still list it here)/can access internet at that time for whatever reason); means he simply cant attack without landing blind as the ships would land before he can access internet again.

maybe a bit too unrealistic, but then you can see the (my) problem better

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

lol frosty...

another less active player.. sees omg.. u prelaunched on him... and omg hes so sleepy... and now he got to stay up alll night trought.. till he knows.. when u launched...

tssk tssk.. his galamates are somewhat lazy with reporting.. we all know that problem..

so... what he gone do now ? ask u to watch his planet ?
or just mail u.. on when u gone land ;)

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

For what it's worth, leave the prelaunch alone.
For those Alliances that seem to be concerned with the prelaunch eta's, suck it up and deal with it. It's been there, as it is now, DCs have had to deal with it in the past and successfully i might add. If you don't have the DCs to deal with it as it is, you might need to consider some changes in your officers not in the game itself.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Heartless well describes what it comes down to. If you want to put off people who are new to the game and/or don't want to devote their time to it, then go ahead and shorten/remove prelaunch. Enjoy playing by yourselves ....

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I see why some people want to remove prelaunch those that can afford to be online 24/7 and that they dislike prelaunch as any sleep that the can get will be taken away due to having to stay up that bit longer waiting for the attack to come so they can send defence.

However generally the people that want to get rid of preluanch are normally so far above the people using it that it should not be an issue either way. Also some of the time it can just be people setting there fleet to a random planet to save it for the night or time when they have to be away with no intention to land, ok this is a pain in the backside when trying to cover incs but it is not intended to be.

To move on. The active players that can be online for a lot longer than most others will generally be in alliances with other players of a similar commitment. Also there should be players from most timezones meaning that there will be somone somewhere online that will be there when the prelaunched incs actually launch. Something they are already comitted to doing being an active player. Understandably even people who play the game in such a hardcore way want sleep and the last thing they need is people setting preluanches.

If prelaunch were to be removed on attacks (as defence prelaunch is needed imo) there would be random attacks coming all through the day when many people can't be active due to work or school. potentially making the game more interesting but taking it to a whole new level where incs will have to be covered all through the day putting even more strain on DCs which already have enough pressure to get incs covered when they are expected let alone when a lower ranked alliance of less hardcore players sends a whole alliance attack at some random time when most players are at work with limited or no access.

Note to self: dnt write so long posts.

to summarise removing prelaunch will add a new element to the game of more random attack times.
however it could stop many people playing as they may feel that in order to compete they have to be on 24/7.
Shortening it is a good solution rather than removing it or shortening it to some level that is as good as removing it.
2-5 ticks of prelaunch should be fine for real attacks as long as defence and fake attacks stay the same to allow people that need to run thier fleet over night or whatever have this opportunity.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

I disagree with the whole concept of shortening/removing prelaunch. I know all the hardcore players who don't like sleep want it shortened, but I am not one of these. I like the concept of being able to take a day off of PA and knowing that I won't loose anything other than 'roids. Just putting my two cents in.

Re: Shortening Prelaunch
 

Exactly, besides the hardcore players (even if they are the best this game has to offer) is only a small percent of the total playerbase, not even all the members in all the top allies never use prelaunch. If they chose not to prelaunch then that's their decision, but don't punish 50-75% of the total players caus a small portion is unhappy with it.
I personally like to sleep, have school and classes to attend to so I use prelaunch to set my attacks (if i can't stay awake) and to run my fleet to somewhere safe for a long period of time if I won't be able to acces Pa for +12 hours or something.
Imo leave prelaunch as it is, if you don't like it you can chose not to use it.