Ship relocation-soon to be

[Nella]

right after reading throught all the posts witch was no easy matter
i like sum of the ideas that where put forward like paying to get your ships back but sorry to say i can see the flaw in that, sorry assisi but i still like that idea lets say we did implament assisi idea,

we could send a message to the person saying

to transport your fleet safely we need x amount

yes or no

then you can chose to spend the money, witch would cover your problem Aurion with is idea, and then if you did not pay the x amount the 75% rule can be implamented

or even you could pay half of the money and have a say only a 55% rule

this is only a idea and when i sed problem Aurion i mean the bug you found with assisi idea so plz dont take it the wrong way

many thanks
nella

[Aurion]

@Locutus: I think idea #2 and #3 are out of question. Not only are they long discussed, they will change the whole game, not only ship relocation, and will also take more time, and Maelstroem already said he won't implement a "big" solution.

I'm not sure about idea #1. It would mean you can still use ship relocation for free, the only thing changed would be the time needed. And i don't know if it can be implemented that easy. Ships are usually available each turn. There is no time in between.
@Nikoy: Sorry, it wasn't you, but Darius. But i knew someone said it in here.

@Assisi: Nobody did laugh. But if you impose a penalty of 100 Credits per 100.000 CP, people *will* laugh at the penalty. And if you impose a penalty of 100.000 Credits for 100 CP, it won't do any good either.

What i'm saying is that it's not easy to find a good number, as not everybody with a big fleet is rich, and not everybody with a small fleet is poor. So one imperator my not mind weekly relocations of his fleet, while another might be bankrupt after it happend only once.

About that "stupid": Again, you missunderstood me. I should probably try to use another writing style. What i'm saying is, you say it's not your problem if people can't afford the upkeep when they have to pay it due to ship relocation. So one could say, "not my problem if they lose 75% of their fleet when it gets relocated."

You can not say "not my problem" to one idea, but "think of how much he would lose" to another.

--

Nellas idea of letting people choose crossed my mind before, too. But it still doesn't completely solve the problem that you can cause greats losses to a player without ever attacking him, as you force him to either pay or to lose X%. It would probably still be better then implementing just one thing.

I also do not know if this is still "quick & easy to implement", as Maelstroem already said he won't implement a "big" solution.

[Assisi]

We are on "Feedback/suggestions for improvement". Even if lately we became off-topic regarding this topic ... nobody can say that these that were wrote above are not suggestions ( better ones or worse ).
I think is good that at least some of us involved in this and I strongly believe that details wrote here can be used for the future. The basic thing is that a "sharp eye" to look at them. Or us to continue to talk about this (and others ideas ) without so much pathos but with a desire for something better to come up.

The poll is clear ... though we should wait more as probably some of us are away in vacation.
_________________
Councilor of the House Assisi in the house Nemesis

[alphabravo]

Dear Maelstroem,

[Aurion]

The poll is not that clear, thats the problem. Most want something changed, but everybody wants something different.

Unless Maelstroem is really happy with one of the suggestions, best would probably to keep it as it is, even if its technically against the majority.

[Locutus]

I must admit that I like the idea put forward by Alpha.

Odds are it will be the easiest to implement, and it will remove the instant travel feature from K1. Devs will be happy, everyone will save their fleet, so they can be happy too, and the abusers won't have their instant transport anymore, so, they *might* not be that happy, but I doubt it matters in this particular situation...

[Assisi]

I think I have an idea about what alpha meant but I am not sure I understand him completly ...
So if alpha would like to explain more ... would be excelent.
_________________
Councilor of the House Assisi in the house Nemesis

[Aurion]

He meant slowest speed ships, to clarify things, not highest.

[alphabravo]

The point of my idea is that, if a ship-jump would have taken place, then a "warplanet_" (eg Maelstroem could copy 99% of the warplanet code) is created which behaves like a normal warplanet, except that it has no navigation menu, and will auto fly to the nearest allied planet.

The ships which would have previously instantaneously travelled will find themselves on this warplanet_, and also are unable to be launched anywhere.

When the warplanet_ arrives at an allied planet, the ships are sent to the planet.


I suspect that this is still too complicated a change for Maelstroem to implement to K1, but I put forward the suggesting in case it is possible.

Also, the speed of the warplanet_ would be 80% of the slowest ship.
so with levis and golis, everything would travel at 48 LY/day, with only golis they'd travel at 96 LY/day.

As I said, I suspect that this is more effort than it's worth to implement and test... but I thought I'd put forward the suggestion anyway.
_________________
Major alphabravo in the house Thalgados-Sissyhood

[Locutus]

alpha, as your idea consists in most part of copy-paste of already existing code, the implementation part shall not be too complex, though, for sure, any idea we will put up in here will be more complex to test than the original idea of only adding one random factor in the equations.

yet, some additional testing work does not tell whether an idea is good or bad.

The real question is when will K2 be launched and if it is soon, is it even worth it to change the behavior of ship relocation in K1?
If not, then, Maeli will have some testing job to do.

[Maelstroem]

Hi,

K2 unfortunately will not be ready for testing for some time - it is the biggest project I have ever engaged in.... But it is fascinating and motivating, so don't worry, if the sky won't fall on our heads, it will be completed.

That said, I respect Alpha's proposal (which mimics the behaviour of K2), but think, it is still too complex to integrate with the current/old code base.

It looks like there will be no change for kosmor.com, which is totally ok for me.

Bye and thanks for all of your input!
Maelstroem
_________________
Commander Maelstroem in the house Nemesis

[Aurion]

So 14 votes so far. This thread will stay open, so you can still discuss if you want, even though it will not really matter, unless the outcome of the vote is suddenly completely different within a few days.

[Darius]

[Assisi]

I think that many of those who think that Maelstroem's initiative is wrong or need to be improved said why they think so. I would like to see why those who voted for it's implementation think is a good idea ? Just because this way the fast relocation would be so dangerous ? Don't they have anything to put in balance ?

Thank you !
Assisi
_________________
Councilor of the House Assisi in the house Nemesis

[Cleric]

i voted for a change, but i belive that my vote should be canceled, since i had the thought thata different change would be made. i still do not agree with lossing ships in that manner. If that is to be the change that is made i vote for no change, or a different idea. As others have said, i as well agree with some of the suggestions, and others i don not agree with. i dont think that there is a need to post what i agree with, because they are much i nthe same as what others agree with.
_________________
Commander Cleric in the house LINERS--007