Force expiration

New features that have been submitted via forum or in game that require more information, or further discussion.
Travdan
Quiet One
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm

Post by Travdan »

Solutions need to be universal. Larger planet galaxies (a la Lacerta et. al) are dependent on the universe layout - so that is not something that can remain static. The same is true about Grey's suggestion.

Freon, your idea is interesting. It brings some consistency to the game, but then accentuates other inconsistencies. By this I mean that you are relating it to "real life" - mines are not in unlimited supply (we would think). However, then you have the issue of ships, weapons, combat drones, scouts, etc. that would also need to be "consistencied."
- Also, people could buy out all the forces in the CA's so that no one else could get mines. That's a very realistic situation, and I don't think it a very healthy situation.
Tulayrk
Quiet One
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:51 am
Location: Penn Republic

Post by Tulayrk »

Grey wrote:If the planet galaxies didn't have so many locs in them I'm sure you'd see a lot smaller mine fields in the non-planet neutrals.
I think it's the other way around. If an alliance has the means (in terms of both finance and manpower), it's inevitable that they will eventually mine very, very large swaths of territory. With small, location-filled planet galaxies, mining out into the adjacent galaxy is done, but not to the same extent, simply because it's more inconvenient to do so (compared to having a galaxy's worth of mines that can only be approached in one or two ways).

As long as mines are functionally limitless for the elite, mining will also be functionally limitless. I approve of this proposed change (or a similar change) because it continues to reward diligent mining while at the same time levels the playing field somewhat.

Of course, I also think that the layout of recent games have been much more conducive to the type of mining that draws criticism, but that's a story for another day.
Kuwl
Beta Tester
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 2:39 am
Location: looking at the computer screen right now
Contact:

Post by Kuwl »

Hmm, there was an idea on the community webboard, about having mines able to be random--like as they become closer and closer to expiration, they can become kamikazi mines... In other words, they attack ANYONE who enters... That's another idea so that people can't mine down huge minefields. To me, it makes logical sense. In space, the mines are free to roam, the farther they roam from their central area, the signal becomes weaker, and they aren't able to recognize who layed the force, ect.
Travdan
Quiet One
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm

Post by Travdan »

Kuwl, that was Blum's idea, and what my "Fourth Rule" was based on =)
ReTodd
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:32 am

Post by ReTodd »

Rules 1-3 are good, but rule 4 looks like it will make little difference. Is the problem really mines in planet gals? Mines are necessary to defend territory and make it so that a gal of lvl 70's won't fall in one op.

The problem as i see it (and correct me if i'm wrong) is mines in neutral gals cutting of locations. Around busy locations rule 4 will have no effect because people will be flying around them constantly. Hunters will always need to go to the CA to replenish their forces, and by doing this they will be refreshing the drift. It won't be much extra work to keep these mines active.

In neutral trade gals mines should just have a lower expiry time. Mines in trade gals should only be necessary for hunting, and mines don't need to last for days to hunt someone.

Now it will be said I'm sure that controlling locations is an important part of the game, but so is trading. The only locations that should be able to be behind huge minefields are lvl 5 weapons, the DC and the FU. Forces, it seems many people have forgotten, are important to trade. Traders use scouts and mines to escape hunters. With more smaller alliances making more money trading, there will be more competition for the bigger alliances.
1st time I traded over 100k, I cheated ;) So nobody cares what names I've used or alliances I've been in.
CHEAT0RZ 4 LIFE0RZ!
Freon22
Beginner Spam Artist
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2002 10:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Freon22 »

ReTodd wrote:The only locations that should be able to be behind huge minefields are lvl 5 weapons, the DC and the FU.
Why should only these locations?

Anyway if people don't like my ideal of increasing the price of mines or making the CA ack like ports. Then just make all mines expire in 3 hours except in the planet galaxys, have the normal expire time for mines in those galaxy. Having a 3 hour expire time will give traders enough time to trade their routes, hunters will have the time to hunt. Then after 3 hours they are gone.

The way it is now neutral galaxys are being mines so most traders are bottle neck into the racials galaxy. So that is were the hunters go, but if the neutral galaxy mines expired after 3 hours. Then alliances would have to have their hunter, hunt those galaxys also. Which means less hunters in the racials galaxys. It would also make it easyer for the small alliances to mount an attack on the larger alliances.
ReTodd
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:32 am

Post by ReTodd »

That's exactly what I'm saying Freon.

And those locations because they don't interfere with trading, but they are something that everyone wants and will fight for. What I really meant but didn't get across correctly is that locs important to trading (ie: IST, PSF, CA) shouldn't be inaccesible to traders. Plus it is easier to put the lvl 5 weapons and DC/FU in planet gals that can be held down by alliances because there is only one location for each of them.
1st time I traded over 100k, I cheated ;) So nobody cares what names I've used or alliances I've been in.
CHEAT0RZ 4 LIFE0RZ!
seldum
Beta Tester
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Force expiration

Post by seldum »

Would like to discuss the ability to set fore expiration times for any stack with mines as opposed to all stacks
Image
RCK
Beginner Spam Artist
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Force expiration

Post by RCK »

Could have it set 3 variables instead of 'forces', separate timers for each Mines, CDs, SDs
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: Force expiration

Post by jouldax »

I like the idea that having a full stack boosts the expiration time, though.
Post Reply