[Declined] Selective Defence - NOT AUTO RECALL

[Hellcat]

Ok I brought this up in a differently titled thread which you may have mis-interpreted.

My idea was for a planet getting defence to choose which fleets sent in defence are allowed into its "air space" and into the actual battle. The fleets which you choose not to allow in would hang around so that they take the same time to get back as a fleet which had taken part in the actual attack.

This is not taking control of other peoples fleets. If they launch to you to keep their ships out the way of an attack they will still be gone for the same amount of time.

The suggestion was simply to prevent inactive, random, free accounts from messing up the game for a paid member. If they were sent from outside the Gal then that would be ok. I can live with being attacked. But it seems unfair that suddenly after no communication, activity or anything a random planet in your Gal launches loads of friendlies at you - just when a Zik is incoming - that you can't do anything to prevent being hit.

Banned in the other thread said "do the calc and send your ships away" well that would be even worse to lose the whole 25% roids. Not a very helpful suggestion. Seemed like you almost supported the use of so called green hostiles.

I think the problem is with subversion, not defending. And with you not sending your fleet away. Don't automatically assume that just because you got owned it's the game's fault.

The main thing I would have to reply to that is that without the green hostiles - I wouldn't have been owned. I would have crushed the incoming fleet.

I just want to stress that this is not a auto-recall thread. Its different. The ships still get there but don't take part in the attack. So its not making a fleet go back to its home planet earlier than the launcher expects.

If this is not a sensible way to prevent people using their multi accounts in gals they are attacking, as extra attack force - then instead of just complaining that this idea is bad, or subversion sucks - suggest something sensible yourself.

I understand that there are no more suggestions going into R13 but I would hope that there will be a R14 and if the problem of green hostiles - especially from free accounts - has not been solved then someone will have already posted a decent, playable suggestion here.

So please dont just dismiss and close this thread. There is a problem and it needs discussing. Even if the ultimate answer is not going to be implemented in the coming round.

Thanks for reading. Hope you understood everything.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Ok I brought this up in a differently titled thread which you may have mis-interpreted.

No, you misunderstand what the feature you're suggesting implies.

My idea was for a planet getting defence to choose which fleets sent in defence are allowed into its "air space" and into the actual battle. The fleets which you choose not to allow in would hang around so that they take the same time to get back as a fleet which had taken part in the actual attack.

I, at least, understood as much. It's still a terrible idea.

This is not taking control of other peoples fleets. If they launch to you to keep their ships out the way of an attack they will still be gone for the same amount of time.

But it is taking control of other people's fleets. If someone puts a farm in my galaxy, I'll be unable to prevent it from losing roids!

The suggestion was simply to prevent inactive, random, free accounts from messing up the game for a paid member. If they were sent from outside the Gal then that would be ok. I can live with being attacked. But it seems unfair that suddenly after no communication, activity or anything a random planet in your Gal launches loads of friendlies at you - just when a Zik is incoming - that you can't do anything to prevent being hit.

It's pretty easy to exile people these days.

Banned in the other thread said "do the calc and send your ships away" well that would be even worse to lose the whole 25% roids. Not a very helpful suggestion. Seemed like you almost supported the use of so called green hostiles.

I'm not entirely against them. They just present a clever use of numbers that require clever counters. Losing ships can be worse than losing roids, depends on how long it takes to rebuild etc.

The main thing I would have to reply to that is that without the green hostiles - I wouldn't have been owned. I would have crushed the incoming fleet.

But you had green hostiles, so you were owned.

I just want to stress that this is not a auto-recall thread. Its different. The ships still get there but don't take part in the attack. So its not making a fleet go back to its home planet earlier than the launcher expects.

Why not just implement auto-everything so we can go back to our day jobs then?

If this is not a sensible way to prevent people using their multi accounts in gals they are attacking, as extra attack force - then instead of just complaining that this idea is bad, or subversion sucks - suggest something sensible yourself.

I've suggested plenty of alternatives to subversion, directly to PAteam. I think you hilight something very important that is a prime reason to fix subversion for next round. Galaxies will have hostiles in them, whether multi or not. The problem with your solution is that it has a very large amount of implications and side-effects that have nothing to do with the actual problem or its symptoms. The law of unintended consequences and all that jazz. You don't really seem to have thought through anything besides what you wished for during those 4 ticks while you watched your chances for keeping the roids/ships dwindle.

I understand that there are no more suggestions going into R13 but I would hope that there will be a R14 and if the problem of green hostiles - especially from free accounts - has not been solved then someone will have already posted a decent, playable suggestion here.

Get an alliance.

[Iceman]

yer i agree aye the problem is rooted to deep within the zikonian race and if it was to be changed the only proper way is to abolish subversion, everyone knows zik smells anyway

and yes i do say that because i am jealous :P

[Thermodynamics]

Hmmm............

This "idea" only has a real value for those being attacked by xans. Beyond that i don't see any real use. If a multi sends "green hostiles" is that similiar to either two co-ordinated attacks or a multi launching 2 fleets at you? I deal with multiple incs- it part of the game, "green hostile" could be consider so.

[Forest]

Ziks = subversion

thats what the race does. The only problem that zik is so overpowered this round, that any old noob can play it.

Zik should simply be a hard race to play, with good results for someone good enough, rather than this round of easy to own without any thought.

Lesson the zik stats, and all these threads would disappear.

[jerome]

Lessen damnit, lessen.

[Troll]

ZIKS back in the day when they fired last and stole ships rather than subverted them were the expert’s race. The hardest race by far to play and the only reason IMO that PA team got rid of Stealing ships was out of the concern of ship farming. So they came up with subversion which is worse than stealing in the balance department due to the fact that subverted ships don’t die. Not only that but the game now is flawed, a large portion of the ships now don’t kill anything but fire first (EMP and subversion) and because initiative is everyone’s best friend those 2 races are the best races of the round. The game has turned into NERF PA where killing is a rarity in a war game.

I say remove subversion bring back stealing ships and have the fire last yet again. This won’t be in r13 clearly and in fact might not even be possible to code since they couldn’t seem to slide subverted ships die into the code in time for this round.

/me removes foam from nerf bat exposing steel

Come on lets play!

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

If a multi sends "green hostiles" is that similiar to either two co-ordinated attacks or a multi launching 2 fleets at you? I deal with multiple incs- it part of the game, "green hostile" could be consider so.

The difference is, no matter how much def you are able to muster, you won't kill those subverted ships. Problem ofc is in subverting, not in fleet control.

[Hellcat]

So whats the problem with this idea?

This isn't sending defence fleets back to their planet to get pwned by other attackers. The defence fleet stays out just as long as it would of if it had taken part in the fight.

If there is a roid farm in your Gal who sends your fleet away when its getting attacked - report this. They would have a hard time explaining why they didn't accept defence.

or is it that unless subversion is changed - which it most likely will not be - that this would cover up a buggy tactic which some people have learnt to exploit?

and that it would give those who dont spend all their waking life on PA the chance to break the top 1000?

I am unlikely to pay for the next round, mostly due to the attitude towards change encountered on these suggestion forums from the 24/7 zombie crew. PA is not going to grow if you need to spend 4 hours+ a day - and at anti-social hours - on your PC. I'm in a decent alliance - but unless I'm online nobody can tell my alliance to send some defence. The way many are acting upon these forums suggest to me that they wish for all the pages within PA to be replaced with a single button. This you click and hold down on the mouse and whoever can go for 3 months without sleep, going to work, socialising with friends and family - wins.

[macros69]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

So whats the problem with this idea?

where do i start.
Why should you have the right to select who comes into your air space. Your attacker got in there with out your permission so the defenders shouldn't need to ask.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

This is not taking control of other peoples fleets.

So what do you call stopping fleets from doing what there owner sent them out to do??

Originally Posted by Hellcat

But it seems unfair that suddenly after no communication, activity or anything a random planet in your Gal launches loads of friendlies at you - just when a Zik is incoming - that you can't do anything to prevent being hit.

isn't what your implying there called cheating. Or even if they are not and it is two separate people, chances are they in the same alliance and working together and you have just been owned. Also what you doing with an inactive in you Gal - surely your GC should have exiled him by now.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

or is it that unless subversion is changed - which it most likely will not be - that this would cover up a buggy tactic which some people have learnt to exploit?

How is this a buggy tactic i think it is a smart move. If someone has the brains (or calculator) to figure out how to do this surely it is allowed. I am an Xan and on a few occasions have had this done to me?? i commend they of there tactics and have some fun trying to stop it.. I understand others feel differently but I am of the heart that all is fair in love and war. You just have to figure out how to defend such attacks and if you are unlucky enough to be attacked and lose 25% of your roids then you will have the pleasure of trying to rebuild

Originally Posted by Hellcat

I am unlikely to pay for the next round, mostly due to the attitude towards change encountered on these suggestion forums from the 24/7 zombie crew. PA is not going to grow if you need to spend 4 hours+ a day - and at anti-social hours - on your PC. I'm in a decent alliance - but unless I'm online nobody can tell my alliance to send some defence. The way many are acting upon these forums suggest to me that they wish for all the pages within PA to be replaced with a single button. This you click and hold down on the mouse and whoever can go for 3 months without sleep, going to work, socialising with friends and family - wins.

Good i hope you dont play next round. Funny how a lot of the susgestions have been accepted or are being discussed in great detail. This one is just stupid. Your the one who needs to get a life seems to me if its not your way and if people aren't agreeing with you , you have a whine. If your not online have you even asked your gal mates to report defences for you. And anyway what does you not being online have to do with the ability to select defences, what does you not being able to commit the amount of time that some people do have anything to do about selective defences, take you whining somewhere else. LOOK now you've made me whine.

PS: How are the hours anti-social who else is up to talk to ???

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

I am unlikely to pay for the next round, mostly due to the attitude towards change encountered on these suggestion forums from the 24/7 zombie crew. PA is not going to grow if you need to spend 4 hours+ a day - and at anti-social hours - on your PC. I'm in a decent alliance - but unless I'm online nobody can tell my alliance to send some defence. The way many are acting upon these forums suggest to me that they wish for all the pages within PA to be replaced with a single button. This you click and hold down on the mouse and whoever can go for 3 months without sleep, going to work, socialising with friends and family - wins.

u do not need to be 0online to get defence, you just need an active galaxy, which is something that people will have a much greater chance of next round.

[Tyroka]

I think this suggestion is to remove the tactic where a zik sends subvert-ships and someone defends with suitable ships so the zik can use these ships. (example co-attack on xan with a xan-helper sending pulsars to get rid of the lancers)

Well tbh this tactic is illegal as the EULA is written at the moment.

Originally Posted by EULA

In Game cheating Any action in game intended to let one account gain score at the direct cost of another with the main intend being the score gain for the one account. Any such action will be regarded as a breach of this agreement, and is punishable by various punitive measures(2).

The xan-helper doesn't get anything (except perhaps some salvage) out of it, the zik gains roids (=>score) and the target looses roids.
I'm not sure whether this tactic is supposed to be allowed but if not then maybe some more active hunting by the cheat-hunters would be needed.
If the tactic is supposed to be allowed then the suggestion only removes a valid tactic and I'm against that.


(Some could argue that the possibility for salvage is enough to make it legal but I don't agree as (realistically) noone would send those pulsars if the zik only sent cutlass (not privateers) to gain the salvage and as such the main intend is the score gain for the one account.)

[Hellcat]

Well Marcos, you have proven my point about the attitude of stupid people on here.

Quote:
Why should you have the right to select who comes into your air space. Your attacker got in there with out your permission so the defenders shouldn't need to ask.

Did I ever complain about being attacked? No. Why? Because its part of the game. What I am complaining about is DEFENCE fleets. FRIENDLY fleets. Ones sent to HELP. Why shouldn't the defenders need to ask? If they are true friendly fleets they will do whatever the hell you ask them to do while in orbit around your planet.

Quote:
So what do you call stopping fleets from doing what there owner sent them out to do??

Its called stopping people abusing a bug in the current game. If a FRIENDLY player does not want your ships to fight in the battle at his planet - then you should respect his wishes. I can't imagine why a player would refuse defence unless either 1. They wanted to get roided or 2. You were not actually friendly and were just exploiting the bug. or 3. They have worked out their battle and can take the incoming theirselves - maybe crushing the attack where your ships may just EMP or subvert his.

Quote:
isn't what your implying there called cheating. Or even if they are not and it is two separate people, chances are they in the same alliance and working together and you have just been owned. Also what you doing with an inactive in you Gal - surely your GC should have exiled him by now.

Well in this universe there aint many people to choose from - either have some inactives in your gal or have a gal with less players in. We all know what happens to gals with less players in..

Quote:
How is this a buggy tactic i think it is a smart move. If someone has the brains (or calculator) to figure out how to do this surely it is allowed. I am an Xan and on a few occasions have had this done to me?? i commend they of there tactics and have some fun trying to stop it.. I understand others feel differently but I am of the heart that all is fair in love and war. You just have to figure out how to defend such attacks and if you are unlucky enough to be attacked and lose 25% of your roids then you will have the pleasure of trying to rebuild

As posted by Tyroka - Thats illegal. The subverted ships are impossible to defend against.

Quote:
Good i hope you dont play next round. Funny how a lot of the susgestions have been accepted or are being discussed in great detail. This one is just stupid. Your the one who needs to get a life seems to me if its not your way and if people aren't agreeing with you , you have a whine.

A lot of suggestions have been discussed at great length and then declined. A lot of suggestions have been approved without discussion. What I asked for here was more discussion. Not for you to start flaming just because someone is suggesting a way to close the loophole some have been exploiting. You will also see if you can be bothered to read the rest of the suggestions forum that I have helped give useful ideas and input on a manner of subjects which I have not "whined" about.

Quote:
If your not online have you even asked your gal mates to report defences for you. And anyway what does you not being online have to do with the ability to select defences, what does you not being able to commit the amount of time that some people do have anything to do about selective defences, take you whining somewhere else. LOOK now you've made me whine.

What on earth are you whining about? I was suggesting that if you were just going to flame instead of contributing then you should go away. That if you are going to say the idea is stupid just because you dont like change then go away. That if you think that sacrificing your life is necessary to play PA then go away. You should have gone away.


If you want to suggest something about this idea. Please show how it may benefit or harm PA. Dont just quote me to flame me with one line somewhere saying "this idea sucks"

[Hellcat]

Originally Posted by Kal

u do not need to be 0online to get defence, you just need an active galaxy, which is something that people will have a much greater chance of next round.

Good to hear.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Did I ever complain about being attacked? No. Why? Because its part of the game. What I am complaining about is DEFENCE fleets. FRIENDLY fleets. Ones sent to HELP. Why shouldn't the defenders need to ask? If they are true friendly fleets they will do whatever the hell you ask them to do while in orbit around your planet.

Send them a mail to recall their defence. They will more often than not do so. I don't think you should have control over their fleets at all beyond that.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Its called stopping people abusing a bug in the current game. If a FRIENDLY player does not want your ships to fight in the battle at his planet - then you should respect his wishes. I can't imagine why a player would refuse defence unless either 1. They wanted to get roided or 2. You were not actually friendly and were just exploiting the bug. or 3. They have worked out their battle and can take the incoming theirselves - maybe crushing the attack where your ships may just EMP or subvert his.

I don't think it's a bug. Ziks subvert ships so they're going to attack you, and you know it. Instead of sending them in an attacking fleet they've sent them as defence to make you think a bit more about it. It's a perfectly valid tactic in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

As posted by Tyroka - Thats illegal. The subverted ships are impossible to defend against.

No. It's not illegal, it's a perfectly valid tactic. It probably needs looking at before next round so that it's not as strong as this round, but it's a valid tactic nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

A lot of suggestions have been discussed at great length and then declined. A lot of suggestions have been approved without discussion. What I asked for here was more discussion. Not for you to start flaming just because someone is suggesting a way to close the loophole some have been exploiting. You will also see if you can be bothered to read the rest of the suggestions forum that I have helped give useful ideas and input on a manner of subjects which I have not "whined" about.

I agree with you here that macros is a bit of an idiot, as had been proved in another thread before it was deleted, but we're getting off topic now

[macros69]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Well Marcos, you have proven my point about the attitude of stupid people on here.

Where did you make this point and how am i being stupid. If your going to call me stupid at least supply valid evidence. Before you say how did i not supply valid evidence -

Originally Posted by macros69

Why should you have the right to select who comes into your air space. Your attacker got in there with out your permission so the defenders shouldn't need to ask.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Quote:
Did I ever complain about being attacked?

Where in that above quote does it say you complained about being attacked??

Originally Posted by hellcat

This is not taking control of other peoples fleets.

That is why i said:

Originally Posted by macrs69

So what do you call stopping fleets from doing what there owner sent them out to do??

So please keep what i said context.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Its called stopping people abusing a bug in the current game. If a FRIENDLY player does not want your ships to fight in the battle at his planet - then you should respect his wishes.

Ok but he is not a friendly player - its the art of deception, a tactic used in many real wars.

Originally Posted by Eula

In Game cheating Any action in game intended to let one account gain score at the direct cost of another with the main intend being the score gain for the one account. Any such action will be regarded as a breach of this agreement, and is punishable by various punitive measures(2).

Are you sure you quoted this right. Let me recap." Any action intended to let one account gain score" oh lets just say an attack ok. "at the direct cost of another" - if you attack surely this is directly costing the defender. "with the main intend (shouldnt that be intent) being the score gain for one account" - UH HELLO why do you attack. To gain roids and score.

Ok even if the Eula quote is right it still says about one planet gaining score at the direct cost of another. Salvage = resources doesnt resources add to your score??? (this is the case of the green hostiles obviously the defender has to lose out thats y i am fishy about the quote) Once again I am not Xan and have not used this tactic myself but i still think it is a tactic not a bug.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Well in this universe there aint many people to choose from - either have some inactives in your gal or have a gal with less players in. We all know what happens to gals with less players in.

.

Funny how every exile i have witnessed as always had a replacement planet in like 24hrs

Originally Posted by hellcat

A lot of suggestions have been discussed at great length and then declined. A lot of suggestions have been approved without discussion. What I asked for here was more discussion. Not for you to start flaming just because someone is suggesting a way to close the loophole some have been exploiting.

Has a pa Team member said that this is a loop hole - if so then im sorry. But so far i have not seen anywhere any Pa Team member stating if you have information otherwise then post a link to where it is said.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

You will also see if you can be bothered to read the rest of the suggestions forum that I have helped give useful ideas and input on a manner of subjects which I have not "whined" about.

well keep up the good work , You will also see if you had bothered that i have read some of the susgestions and made comments on them - normally not to negative. But i have explaned how i have "flamed" this one.

Originally Posted by macros69

If your not online have you even asked your gal mates to report defences for you. And anyway what does you not being online have to do with the ability to select defences, what does you not being able to commit the amount of time that some people do have anything to do about selective defences, take you whining somewhere else. LOOK now you've made me whine.

Originally Posted by hellcat

What on earth are you whining about? I was suggesting that if you were just going to flame instead of contributing then you should go away. That if you are going to say the idea is stupid just because you dont like change then go away. That if you think that sacrificing your life is necessary to play PA then go away. You should have gone away.

Um where did i say i didnt like change??? yes i like the way planetarion is right now but obviously there is room for improvement. This was already declined. Also what does your activity level have to do with this thread??? you were going off the topic of your own thread..
i am "flaming" you for everything i have said before and am now responding to your "flaming". Where did i say sacrifice your life??? i manage to juggle my real life with my planetarion and still put a lot of time in online?

Originally Posted by Hellcat

If you want to suggest something about this idea. Please show how it may benefit or harm PA. Dont just quote me to flame me with one line somewhere saying "this idea sucks"

Ok it will benefit PA not at all. It will harm PA by removing a brilliant tactic, taking control of fleets out of the hands of those who own them. How is it taking control?? if they decide to send it to your planet to fight a battle what ever side they are on then if you tell them to go home and not the person whoes fleets they are that is taking contol.

Also If you are going to quote me please kindly keep it in context. oh and sorry about the amount quotes felt it was necessary

[Envious]

Originally Posted by macros69

Ok it will benefit PA not at all. It will harm PA by removing a brilliant tactic, taking control of fleets out of the hands of those who own them. How is it taking control??

come on. it needs to be changed, seriously. else i demand i get a deathstar class just for Xan and no ships for anyone to target it, so they never die. how is this justified? well, it's a brilliant tactic to attack with invincible ships, isn't it? so obviously we need that.

to clear up any confusion: i don't support the idea of a planet controlling which fleets enter it's airspace, i'm just not too euphoric about the lame option of green hostiles. i suggest fixing this by changing the way subverting works

[Synthetic_Sid]

I support the proposal, but would prefer a slightly modified version of it. If you realise a fleet heading to your planet on "defence" is actually hostile you should be able to treat it as such. So if someone sends hostile defence to you and you identify it you should be able to treat it as an attacking fleet and have the defence shoot on it. I wouldn't, however, propose to allow that to be done for in-alliance or in-galaxy defenders - as that just opens up other loopholes.

Yes, ziks are supposed to be able to subvert. But the argument that hostile defence is somehow some form of "sneakiness" or "cunning" is a false one. There's nothing very clever about exploiting a flaw in the game design which allows hostile fleets to be made invulnerable by being sent on defence. The current situation is pretty much that if a xan and a zik attack together (with the right ship types) the xan gets given total immunity to any damage, emping or subversion as all defenders are forced to pretend that they're friendly and ignore them. Does that really make any sense?

If a hostile fleet's headed to my planet, I couldn't really give a toss what orders they've given THEIR fleet. I want MY fleet to be instructed to target them. This isn't about controlling other people's fleets - it's about controlling your own.

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I support the proposal, but would prefer a slightly modified version of it. If you realise a fleet heading to your planet on "defence" is actually hostile you should be able to treat it as such. So if someone sends hostile defence to you and you identify it you should be able to treat it as an attacking fleet and have the defence shoot on it. I wouldn't, however, propose to allow that to be done for in-alliance or in-galaxy defenders - as that just opens up other loopholes.

Yes, ziks are supposed to be able to subvert. But the argument that hostile defence is somehow some form of "sneakiness" or "cunning" is a false one. There's nothing very clever about exploiting a flaw in the game design which allows hostile fleets to be made invulnerable by being sent on defence. The current situation is pretty much that if a xan and a zik attack together (with the right ship types) the xan gets given total immunity to any damage, emping or subversion as all defenders are forced to pretend that they're friendly and ignore them. Does that really make any sense?

If a hostile fleet's headed to my planet, I couldn't really give a toss what orders they've given THEIR fleet. I want MY fleet to be instructed to target them. This isn't about controlling other people's fleets - it's about controlling your own.

i agree totally with ya sid...i would like an option to be able to attack a incoming fake defence...

i also dont buy the comments that it is a "legtimate tactic" or whatever....

[macros69]

Yeh i like the idea of being able to chose whether you treat the defence as hostile or not and as long as you could not chose for allies and in gal defence then i dont see how this is a problem. I still think that this is a legitiimate tactic however and with this idea to combat it , it would be ok to keep it. This way people could use the tactic but now people have a fair way to combat it. May i just ask do think that you would send out a automated message to say something like - "your defence is being treated as hostile please recall or what ???"

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by macros69

Yeh i like the idea of being able to chose whether you treat the defence as hostile or not and as long as you could not chose for allies and in gal defence then i dont see how this is a problem. I still think that this is a legitiimate tactic however and with this idea to combat it , it would be ok to keep it. This way people could use the tactic but now people have a fair way to combat it. May i just ask do think that you would send out a automated message to say something like - "your defence is being treated as hostile please recall or what ???"

Logically, there's no way you should know your defence is being treated as hostile until the real defence starts shooting on you. But I can't see that being too popular, so a reasonable compromise would be to make it so you could only change the way in which a fleet was being treated until ETA 4, and that the fleet's orders were changed to attack at that stage - so the person sending the fleet had a chance to notice it and recall.

An alternative to this approach would be to resurrect an idea originally proposed and discussed many rounds ago - whereby ALL fleets other than your own galaxy/alliance are treated as hostile. In that scenario you'd no longer use Attack/Defend orders - you'd just send a fleet to planet. If the planet was in your galaxy/alliance you'd defend, otherwise you'd attack. And if there were attackers from 2 or more different alliances they'd fight one another as well as the defence. This would make "blocking" slightly more tricky, but would also require a total rewrite of the combat system and proper discussion of how to handle cluster alliances.

[Tyroka]

Originally Posted by macros69

Are you sure you quoted this right. Let me recap." Any action intended to let one account gain score" oh lets just say an attack ok. "at the direct cost of another" - if you attack surely this is directly costing the defender. "with the main intend (shouldnt that be intent) being the score gain for one account" - UH HELLO why do you attack. To gain roids and score.

Ok even if the Eula quote is right it still says about one planet gaining score at the direct cost of another. Salvage = resources doesnt resources add to your score??? (this is the case of the green hostiles obviously the defender has to lose out thats y i am fishy about the quote) Once again I am not Xan and have not used this tactic myself but i still think it is a tactic not a bug.

Yes the quote is correct (at least the version u can find through portal) tho I agree it's not perfectly written.
The salvage thing I don't buy and has already explained why. I'll redo my verson that the score gained by the zik is gained by "direct cost" at the xan-helper at least if you call that a fleet that is out for ~14 ticks a cost (I see it that way, even with some little salvage).

However it seems we can agree (after your last post in here) that the tactic is a bit too good as it is atm.

[macros69]

Synthetic Sid you refer to this as a flaw but i still feel that it is a valid tactic - if some what flawed itself (if that makes any sense.) However i like your idea of being able to chose if you treat defence hostile and have now been brought round to think that communicating to the player who sends the defence is a bad idea.

This means people are perfectly entitiled to "risk" using this tactic but when actual attack occurs things could go pair shape and as your "should be subverted" fleets are now being fired apon by the defender and have not been subverted. This means that there are risks to this tactic aswell as great advantages when pulled off.

People normally communicate with who is sending them friendly defence so ziks and co. would really be playing a game of chance.

I will admit this tactic is too good at the moment and have not voiced that until now but i do not feel that it should be removed from the game entirely. Synthetic Sid's idea would create a balance for this tactic and a way for people to counter it. (however there are ways to counter it now. Be that as it may not particularly effective unless thought out properly)

[Hellcat]

Great suggestion Sid. Thats exactly what I wanted to write but hadn't thought of it at the time of posting!

As for notifying the attacker/defender - Let them take the risk. You dont get a warning when you covert op that you are likely to get caught... You dont get a warning that ingal defence contains real defence that will kill your ships..

So if they spot your incoming defence and they decide its fake - then you shouldnt find out until one varshark comes back all battle burnt with its pilot muttering over and over "They didn't fall for it Sir.. It was a massacre"

[mist]

i'd have said something shorter than 4 hours, unless people waking up to eta 1 incommings doesn't happen anymore?

the idea of deciding hostiles on alliance/gal could be more tricky tho as those that're allianceless would be at an even greater disadvantage than currently, unless you have a plan to get them in to alliances?

-mist

[Banned]

Originally Posted by mist

i'd have said something shorter than 4 hours, unless people waking up to eta 1 incommings doesn't happen anymore?

So that the attacker has to be on until eta 1 to know if his attack is successful? I think not. Eta 4 is a fine compromise.

[mist]

everyone keeps saying that combat should be less predictable

1 is to short, but i think 4 is too long. although from a gameplay pov i don't think a warning should be given at all tbh, obviously, from a coding pov giving a warning would be easier as it'd mean you could simply change the ship's mission

[Banned]

Originally Posted by mist

1 is to short, but i think 4 is too long.

4 is when you can't do anything anyway, it's completely logical. If you couldn't get def in the first place, you'd be sending your fleet away right about then.

[OrionIII]

ok, the only thing I could suggest about he original topic here would be this

I agree that you shouldn’t be able to allow hostile in but not allow friendlies in, its kind of goofy to be honest. But if the PA crew wanted, maybe they could code it so that if you suspect the freindlies of being green hostiles, you can designate them as hostiles before they arrive somehow. While i don’t know if that is feasible or not, it seems it COULD be a way to handle this issue because, if your fleet designates them as hostile, they are defending you, etc, BUT you can now FIRE ON THEM! it wont change them eing able to hit you, or the enemy being able to subvert them, BUT NOW YOU CAN DEFEND AGAINST IT if you suspect it to be a green hostile situation. As I said I don’t know if that is even a practical idea for the coding, BUT it is a suggestion, so as Hellcat stated, reply with valid Pros and cons, but keep the flamers away,

While I’m on it, and Kal or someone can move this to another thread, Can we make some sort of rule against flaming people in these Discussion based forums, as all they do is cause arguments and detract from the true reason for the thread. We are here to discuss ideas for Pa , to Bring ideas to the Crews attention, not get flamed for having an idea, let ppl post polite pros and cons, but penalize the flamers somehow, cos its really annoying to try to read and reply to a discussion when you have to read 2 pages of people flaming the first 2 or 3 on topic postings

[mist]

Originally Posted by OrionIII

While I’m on it, and Kal or someone can move this to another thread, Can we make some sort of rule against flaming people in these Discussion based forums, as all they do is cause arguments and detract from the true reason for the thread. We are here to discuss ideas for Pa , to Bring ideas to the Crews attention, not get flamed for having an idea, let ppl post polite pros and cons, but penalize the flamers somehow, cos its really annoying to try to read and reply to a discussion when you have to read 2 pages of people flaming the first 2 or 3 on topic postings

i agree with this, however, i only agree on the condition that any post which is not either origonal and well argued or an agreement with an origonal and well argued post be deleted. the amount of posts stating an opinion without backing it up or in most cases showing anything above a gut level reaction is a far greater blight on these boards than the occasional flaming of people who make such posts.

-mist

[Kal]

this will not be needed due to a surprise coming up..