Change to vacation mode.

[MrLobster]

How about adding an active vacation mode:

1) You can have your fleets perma prelaunched (until you log back in)
2) You still get resources from the roids per tick.
3) You're open to attack all the time (only your roids can be lost).
4) Same minimum time as normal vacation mode.

[Mzyxptlk]

Hmm, this sounds pretty interesting. I'll think it over for a bit.

An idea for normal vacation mode: add a button that says 'go into vacation mode when my fleets have returned'.

[RuBBeR]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Hmm, this sounds pretty interesting. I'll think it over for a bit.

An idea for normal vacation mode: add a button that says 'go into vacation mode when my fleets have returned'.

what would happen if you get pr-l before your fleet has returned home? Or will your planet be off limits the moment you tick the box?

[gzambo]

i think he is suggesting that ur fleet is safe but your roids are not

[MrLobster]

Yah so its the same restraints are vacation mode, all fleets home, no incoming etc. But your planet stays live, but with your fleet perma prelaunched.

[_Kila_]

Maybe if you made it a choice between not being able to mine your roids + being immune to attacks and being able to mine them but being open for attack it'd be a better idea.

Going into vac mode (with the current system) whilst there are PLed fleets on you should leave the fleets going, and exclude your ships from the combat.

[RuBBeR]

Originally Posted by gzambo

i think he is suggesting that ur fleet is safe but your roids are not

I was referring to mz's post.

[MrLobster]

I do say that if you have prelaunches (no matter what vacation mode) that they should be able to fly, dont punish people for prelaunching.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by RuBBeR

what would happen if you get pr-l before your fleet has returned home? Or will your planet be off limits the moment you tick the box?

Good point. You're right, it's a bad idea (mine, that is).

[Monroe]

I'm not a big fan of this idea, mainly because it allows active players who have friends to potentially avoid any of the penalties of going into vacation mode. IE anyone who is in an active galaxy and thinks they have a reasonable chance of getting defense while they are in vacation mode would be much more willing to go into vacation mode because there is less down side. The only really upside of this proposal as far as I can see is that it makes it harder for people to "hide" from attacks by going into vacation mode as your roids can still be stolen. But since people have to take a 3 day resource penalty to go into vacation mode, honestly it isn't that big of a deal in my mind.

[MrLobster]

Originally Posted by Monroe

I'm not a big fan of this idea, mainly because it allows active players who have friends to potentially avoid any of the penalties of going into vacation mode. IE anyone who is in an active galaxy and thinks they have a reasonable chance of getting defense while they are in vacation mode would be much more willing to go into vacation mode because there is less down side. The only really upside of this proposal as far as I can see is that it makes it harder for people to "hide" from attacks by going into vacation mode as your roids can still be stolen. But since people have to take a 3 day resource penalty to go into vacation mode, honestly it isn't that big of a deal in my mind.

Any player with a decent set of roids, would be in a decent sized galaxy. If you have huge roids and in a small gal, you will get targeted anyway.

Its easier to init roids from low, so if a lesser player goes in to "Active-Vacation" he will most likely get enough resources to init the lost roids (if they lose any).

If they dont then they have at least got more resources to play with.

But then you are right that the more active players in better galaxys would be better off, but if they get a huge inc can the alliance/galaxy stop it? Would that be any differrent than if they were not in active-vacation.

[M0RPH3US]

Originally Posted by _Kila_

Going into vac mode (with the current system) whilst there are PLed fleets on you should leave the fleets going, and exclude your ships from the combat.

please listen to that man

regarding the original suggestion:

i don´t see a reason not to do it, however i think going into that kind of vacation mode needs to be shown somehow on galstat again, with whatever bracket we got left
however i think it will invite potential attackers to pick on you, seeing your fleet 100% won´t take part in the battle
it could turn out for your gal/alliance to be too much to handle
so i personally think the downsides outweight the positive things of this

so if its really needed, add it

[MrLobster]

Originally Posted by M0RPH3US

please listen to that man

regarding the original suggestion:

i don´t see a reason not to do it, however i think going into that kind of vacation mode needs to be shown somehow on galstat again, with whatever bracket we got left
however i think it will invite potential attackers to pick on you, seeing your fleet 100% won´t take part in the battle
it could turn out for your gal/alliance to be too much to handle
so i personally think the downsides outweight the positive things of this

so if its really needed, add it

I think most people will attack and try to avoid ship losses. I DC with the thought that his home fleets are not home, mainly because the guy is already a sleep and more likely sent his fleet out to attack.

Ok lets put it like this... what would you choose? You have a week away, do you

a) Goto Inactice-Vacation mode, and lose 1 weeks resources, but have no fear of being losing ships/roids.

b) Goto Active-Vacation, gain 1 week of resources, losing no ships, but having the chance of losing roids if your attacked.

It does depend on personal circumstances.

You could even have both options available.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by MrLobster

But then you are right that the more active players in better galaxys would be better off, but if they get a huge inc can the alliance/galaxy stop it? Would that be any differrent than if they were not in active-vacation.

I guess my basic problem with this suggestion is that it makes vacation mode more attractive and therefore more likely to be abused. The current system treats all players equally, there is no advantage for larger players that smaller players don't also have. What you are suggesting makes vac mode more attractive to large active players, something I don't feel we should be encouraging in general, without really helping the smaller players who do not have the benefits of an active galaxy or alliance.

-----------------
I assume the basic problem you are trying to solve is the fact that some large players do in fact "hide" their roids from attack by going into vacation mode. While it is annoying that big players sometimes chicken out this way, the current penalties are sufficient to keep vac mode from being seriously abused, and unless that changes I don't see a good reason in any of the arguments you have made to change the system.

[t3k]

If you're in a good galaxy that will defend you if you do have to go away for any reason, what's wrong with having your ships in permanent prelaunch?

You shouldn't be punished for having a RL Monroe :P

[MrLobster]

My point is the fact I want the resource from vacation. Even if that means running the risk of losing roids :-)

Rethinking my idea, its bascially adding 1 function,

"remove ships from all combat at home planet".

We not just add this feature? Instead of a prelaunch of +1 to +10 you have perma launch, your ships never go anywhere but they leave the planet defenceless?

This is in essence my suggestion.

EDIT: Indeed asust3k

[Zaejii]

if you're going to add an exclusion function, i would have to suggest some sort of downside or everyone would constantly be clicking that box to save from cov ops, attacks while away, etc. maybe a 24-48 hour fleet exclusion thats different from vacation mode, and you can not launch any fleets during that time window.

[Cochese]

Making a persistent universe playable for the casual gamer is nothing short of a mother ****ing bitch.