Planetarion Forums

Banned · 30 Nov 2004, 07:12

Anonymous JGPs if you've got a fleetslot free please, or autolaunch/recall of a designated fleet.

Cochese · 30 Nov 2004, 07:39

Seconded.

Tis · 30 Nov 2004, 07:57

Thirded, with Feeling!

Banned · 30 Nov 2004, 09:13

Oh, and make JGPs show race of each fleet owner and give scan links please, thanks.

Eol · 30 Nov 2004, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

Oh, and make JGPs show race of each fleet owner and give scan links please, thanks.

Seconded, and Fourthed (with regards to the original post).

In fact, why not make it the same format as the galstatus page, so I don't have to delve into the dark abyss that is regular expressions again

Kal · 30 Nov 2004, 12:25

Interesting, I personally want to do the opposite, I want to make jumpgates how I assume they were orginally intended so that the person actually attakcing has to do them. This could be done by mkaing them only work when there is a fleet at less than eta 4 for example (although that does remove some tactics).

Eol · 30 Nov 2004, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

Interesting, I personally want to do the opposite, I want to make jumpgates how I assume they were orginally intended so that the person actually attakcing has to do them. This could be done by mkaing them only work when there is a fleet at less than eta 4 for example (although that does remove some tactics).

If you want to do that, you can make them possible only when the *return ETA* > 0. That does the trick nicely. You can scan for others, but you lose a fleettick, and for most people that's a fairly hefty price. And it doesn't remove tactics.

However, if you are going to let players JGP scan the second they hit "Launch", then you should make it convenient for them.

I don't think the suggestion really applies to whether or not there should be an ETA limit of JGPs, but rather at fixing the sheer inconvenience of doing one as it is now. It's in ways two different discussions.

Kal · 30 Nov 2004, 13:32

I agree, but why code something if it will then be removed. Its not that hard to launch your fleet scan and recall.

Banned · 30 Nov 2004, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

I agree, but why code something if it will then be removed. Its not that hard to launch your fleet scan and recall.

It's a hassle. Consider the extra bandwidth used as well

Face it, scan planets are a good thing, not 'another tool of the big, oppressing alliances'. If you force everyone to do their own scans, you're rebalancing distorters and amps heavily. Only people in big alliances will be able to defend them on a regular basis, therefore people who have more trouble getting def are punished.

mist · 30 Nov 2004, 22:22

jester, i don't follow your justification.

it seems to say that scan planets are a good thing, because without them only the big alliances would get scans anyway, which i don't quite follow...

-mist

Eol · 30 Nov 2004, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

jester, i don't follow your justification.

it seems to say that scan planets are a good thing, because without them only the big alliances would get scans anyway, which i don't quite follow...

-mist

He's saying that planets that are more likely to get bashed (and thus lose their amps) are going to be at a disadvantage to larger planets that are less likely to be bashed. Thus having scans to be a Target vs Attacker "battle" between amps and distorters, you are actually helping larger planets who can maintain their building counts. Ie, the alliances.

At least that's how I read it.

The Real Arfy · 30 Nov 2004, 22:53

This is crazy. IF you decide to rid us of scan planets (which I personally think is stupid) then atleast let us build a sufficient amount of buildings and remove the limit

mist · 30 Nov 2004, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eol

He's saying that planets that are more likely to get bashed (and thus lose their amps) are going to be at a disadvantage to larger planets that are less likely to be bashed. Thus having scans to be a Target vs Attacker "battle" between amps and distorters, you are actually helping larger planets who can maintain their building counts. Ie, the alliances.

that's what i read, however i don't see how this is any differet to helping the big alliances by making scan planets less effort?

-mist

Gerbie · 1 Dec 2004, 00:02

JPGs are a hassle only for scanplanets. It should be even more of a hassle. As I said somewhere else I would only allow JPGs to show fleets at the same eta.

Eol · 1 Dec 2004, 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerbie

JPGs are a hassle only for scanplanets. It should be even more of a hassle. As I said somewhere else I would only allow JPGs to show fleets at the same eta.

lo prelaunch heaven.

mist · 1 Dec 2004, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eol

lo prelaunch heaven.

why would that be prelaunch heaven?

-mist

Eol · 1 Dec 2004, 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

why would that be prelaunch heaven?

-mist

It'd be impossible to notice prelaunched fleets.

mist · 1 Dec 2004, 01:12

ah, yes

allowing a planet to jpg scan itself without having to have a fleet returning, and hence not being limited by eta would solve this tho

-mist

Gerbie · 1 Dec 2004, 06:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eol

It'd be impossible to notice prelaunched fleets.

I don't think it'd be impossible (let allies prelaunch at different eta's, the only eta you can't spot that way is eta 10, unless you have a friend for that). I don't think it's necessarily that bad either if prelaunched ships are not easily noticed.

Veil05 · 1 Dec 2004, 07:27

i think its time we lost the whole "allaince scanner" thing, and only make it possible to jgp on a planet your attacking with loswer than eta 4 for instance...

Planet A is hitting Planet X
Planet B jgp's Planet X but cannot because hes not actually doing a real attack

i think thats what Kal said i didnt really read the post :s but whatever.