Kosmor Forum Index
 Search Imprint      SearchSearch     Log inLog in 
 Search Legal      MemberlistMemberlist     ProfileProfile   

Ship relocation-soon to be
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Kosmor Forum Index -> Feedback / suggestions for improvement
View previous topic :: View next topic  

What do you think about the changes to ship-relocation?
Maelstroems solution should be implemented
37%
 37%  [ 9 ]
Nothing should be changed
37%
 37%  [ 9 ]
Something else (post it in this thread then)
25%
 25%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 24

Author Message
Nikoy
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:37    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have voted for "Something else" and have already given several proposals about what else. In my opinion sending the fleet as a whole to a random planet or separating it to te several closest planets will work good enough (especially the first one) as even the player with least planets has some 10-20 planets on different places, so he will never know to which planet his fleet will be sent.
Back to top
Maelstroem
Commander


Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 430
Location: Munich, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 16:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

just for information to you giving a vote in the poll,
the proposed patch will be applied for kosmor.de and I don't see very much room on the dev side for another solution for kosmor.com without further delaying K2.

This would leave us only with two alternatives
a) Introduce the same patch that will be applied to kosmor.de to kosmor.com (Vote points for #1)
b) Do not introduce any patch (Vote points for #2 or #3 combined). Currently it looks like there will be no patch for .com.

Bye,
Maelstroem
_________________
Commander Maelstroem in the house Nemesis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Aurion
Member of the House


Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 591
Location: Alpha Section

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

It should be possible to tweak the patch if it's only about the numbers, like losing only 50% of the cp max, only after double the ship range (240 LY) etc., right?

Of course, a complete different solution would take time, which is out of question.
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Maelstroem
Commander


Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 430
Location: Munich, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:44    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, tweaking the numbers is easily possible.
_________________
Commander Maelstroem in the house Nemesis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Assisi
Councillor of the House


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 314
Location: Bucuresti , Romania

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 13:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because I understand that no big change can happen ... I voted for no change.

But if this would be posible I have another idea ... maybe will help for other issues in the future.

Let's take into consideration a fleet of 100 H10 and the instant travel is of 3000 (3K) LY . For a fast relocation of this fleet ... it's owner should pay :
S = X x Y x Z
where:
S - summ to be paid
X - upkeep of that fleet for one day
Y - distance between the two points of the relocation ( in K - 1000ly)
Z - a variable that we would fix ( in this case I will pick 20 )

so S = 5.000.000 x 3 x 20 = 300.000.000 credits
The numbers could be fixxed.
This way I think that the player who would think about a fast ship relocation ... would think better about losing this sum of money , would not stop big WP to exist but would make players involved with fleets in that big WP to be more carefull when managing his account.
_________________
Councilor of the House Assisi in the house Nemesis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nikoy
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 16:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only 8 people voted...!?!?!

Hmm... maybe the situation here is worst than what I was thinking...
Well, lets hope it is because of the vacation time.


About Assisi's proposal - I like it.
Back to top
Aurion
Member of the House


Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 591
Location: Alpha Section

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 20:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if a player doesn't have that money? Ships stay where they are? Or all income until he paid the sum gets confiscated?



Oh, and about the votes.. i'm not surprised. We do not have that many players. Half of them is not really active, and only half of the active ones ever looks in the forum. And only half of them does this regulary, like each day. And only half of them is interested in more then the galactic news etc.. (15 views..there you can see the daily visitors..probably less, if some look several times)

124/2 = 62/2 = 31/2 = 16/2...and so on.

8 is quite good i would say.
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Assisi
Councillor of the House


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 314
Location: Bucuresti , Romania

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 01:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aurion wrote:
What if a player doesn't have that money? Ships stay where they are? Or all income until he paid the sum gets confiscated?


I forgot to write about this but yes ... your idea is good OR the player loses those ships that he doesn't have money for.


Aurion wrote:

Oh, and about the votes.. i'm not surprised. We do not have that many players. Half of them is not really active, and only half of the active ones ever looks in the forum. And only half of them does this regulary, like each day. And only half of them is interested in more then the galactic news etc.. (15 views..there you can see the daily visitors..probably less, if some look several times)

124/2 = 62/2 = 31/2 = 16/2...and so on.

8 is quite good i would say.


I really hope that the situation will change.
_________________
Councilor of the House Assisi in the house Nemesis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fehdmann_Kassad
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 02:26    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Kann mir auch jemand das Problem auf Deutsch schildern? Nur in kurzen Worten? Danke.
Back to top
Aurion
Member of the House


Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 591
Location: Alpha Section

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, my ideas aren't good.

If they stay where they are if you do not have the money, you can exploit it. Make sure you do not have the money, and even if you get conquered, your ships will stay. So lets say, the stay on the warplanet, which is no longer allied, so they fight..then you could make sure other players do not have enough money and defeat both fleets without even participating in that fight.

So, lets say income gets confiscated.

Until what? Until they paid the whole sum? Does it get confiscated before or after they paid for factories, ships etc? Before means, you will lose everything, if you had like 2 millions and need to pay 300 millions, unless you have some giant surplus of 200 millions a day or so.

So you can totally defeat other players without fighting their fleet.

Lets say it gets confiscated after you paid everything. Ok, then it will take even longer to pay it, and you could do nothing in the meantime. Unless you are willing to destroy all you have built yourself.

And what if they do have a deficit already? Most bigger players i now have a deficit, nearly all the time. Some are always short on money.

Does it get added to the sum they have to pay for relocation? So after some days it would be 350 millions, not 300? Or just ignore the deficit? Then you could afford giant fleets.

Or destroy ships, factories etc as you can't pay them? Then it's the same problem like above, when it gets impounded before paying upkeep.

Summary: Either you can abuse it so your ships do not get move, you can hold a fleet of infite size, or other players can destroy you without even attacking you.

And you are talking about the negative sided Maelstroems solution would have? At least you would only lose your fleet, and only a part of it, and not ALL money, WHOLE fleet, ALL factories, and no income for the rest of the month.

To avoid this, you would again need to conquer planets nearby, a thing most thought of a joke when applied to Maelstroems solution, or you have to make sure you can always pay the re-location tac, which is not even possible, as you lose 25% when you get conquered. And again, and again.. so you have to keep 2 billions to make sure you can pay 300 millions all the time.

Or, we will see smaller fleets. Which leads me back to Maelstroems solution, where for example Nikoy talked about that he would need 6-9 months to rebuild 75% of his fleet. With smaller fleets, it would take only 2-4 months, for example. And as Maelstroem wanted to reduce randomness, and to make it fair, it's better if you do always lose a part, instead of either only some money, which you don't know what to do with anyways, or leaving you crippled for the next 2 years.

---

@Fehdmann_Kassad:

Derzeit werden Schiffe, die auf nem Planeten/Kriegsplaneten stehen, der nun feindlich ist, zum nächsten befreundeten Planeten transferiert, unabhängig davon wie weit der weg ist, und ohne irgendwelchen Verluste wie Schiffe die kaputt gehen, oder eine Gebühr die zu bezahlen wäre.

Das ermöglicht es, mit etwas Geschick, Schiffe bzw. ganze Flotten an einem Tag über beinahe beliebige Distanzen zu katapultieren, was so nicht vorgesehen ist.

Maelstroem wollte das nun ändern, doch seine Lösung kam nicht dermaßen gut an. Wir versuchen nun, eine andere, vorallem auch leicht zu implementierbare Lösung zu finden.

Du solltest evtl. in Kosmor.de das Forum lesen, da wurde das ganze ja auch eingebaut und diskutiert, wenn auch mit anderen Ergebnissen.
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Assisi
Councillor of the House


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 314
Location: Bucuresti , Romania

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's good to see that Aurion gets combative from time to time ... especially against some posts ...

Aurion wrote:
No, my ideas aren't good.


The first one is indeed no good but I didn't took it into consideration because it's ilogical. My omission not to tell this.


Aurion wrote:
So, lets say income gets confiscated.


This idea looks not to wrong because I believe that a good formula/variant it's posible to be found. I didn't entered into the depth of the problem because I thought you did but now I realize that you only wanted to be sarcastic ... which is such an easy thing to do ( I was able to do it at the begining of this Wink ). I think that we all try to get something good from this so let's think more about a posible solution because is hard to build but easy to destroy.



Aurion wrote:
And what if they do have a deficit already? Most bigger players i now have a deficit, nearly all the time. Some are always short on money.


Everyone manages his account and his finances how he thinks that is better. If he can't upkeep his fleet ... is not our problem.

Aurion wrote:
Summary: Either you can abuse it so your ships do not get move, you can hold a fleet of infite size, or other players can destroy you without even attacking you.
And you are talking about the negative sided Maelstroems solution would have? At least you would only lose your fleet, and only a part of it, and not ALL money, WHOLE fleet, ALL factories, and no income for the rest of the month.


Aurion ... those weren't our/mine ideas but your's. Why do you say this like we/I should say " mea culpa " ???

Once again ... I was ok about your "ideas" ( actually only to the second one ) only because I gaved you credit. All I wanted with my post was to tell a posible solution ... which is not conected with nothing above.

Regards
_________________
Councilor of the House Assisi in the house Nemesis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurion
Member of the House


Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 591
Location: Alpha Section

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just wanted to point out the flaws in your solution.

Quote:
Everyone manages his account and his finances how he thinks that is better. If he can't upkeep his fleet ... is not our problem.


Yes it is. As long as you have money, you can afford a deficit. If you suddenly lose 300 millions because of a random attack, it can get worse then losing the whole fleet, as you lose your money, your ships, your factories etc. as said before.

Also, you can't say "everyone manages his account.." here, but not apply it to other solutions.

What if i can rebuild my whole fleet in one day, because i only have 1 Goliath (which is not true, but lets say it is for the purpose of this post), so why should we care about Nikoy needing 6-9 months? Not my problem if he is so stupid to actually build ships. (no offense, i'm just exaggerating for the purpose of clarifying things).

Lets look at it the other way. It is a big problem if you lose so much that you need several months to rebuilt. So wouldn't it be a even bigger problem if you lose even more?

About "why i'm saying it like this": Because i only followed your idea.

I don't think someone has to first think of every single thing that might happen before posting an idea, thats what other people are for. But it's not enough to say "lets do it like that, ta-daa!".

So, it's good you had the idea about paying money, but it's far from being a solution. Unless someone has an idea how to prevent this issues without making people laugh at the penalty it's just not practicable.
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Assisi
Councillor of the House


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 314
Location: Bucuresti , Romania

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 15:28    Post subject: Reply with quote

First ... my formula was just a thinking exercise. I understood before post it that cannot be aplied. I only wrote it because maybe in the future ... may help to other issues.
Also it's an open formula. The variables can be modified. If we would have come to the conclusion that the variables should be smaller, we would have done this small corection.

Aurion wrote:
If you suddenly lose 300 millions because of a random attack, it can get worse then losing the whole fleet, as you lose your money, your ships, your factories etc. as said before.

My example was for 100 H10. I do not know how much would cost the components and the building costs of those but I really think is greater then 300 millions (number that could be lower if the variables would be lower).


Aurion wrote:
What if i can rebuild my whole fleet in one day, because i only have 1 Goliath (which is not true, but lets say it is for the purpose of this post), so why should we care about Nikoy needing 6-9 months? Not my problem if he is so stupid to actually build ships. (no offense, i'm just exaggerating for the purpose of clarifying things).

It's Nikoy decision to build a larger fleet in a longer period but don't know who would be called "stupid" if you to would meet in battle. Also here ... everybody is managing his account how he think is best.


Aurion wrote:
About "why i'm saying it like this": Because i only followed your idea.

You followed my idea in a wrong direction.

Aurion wrote:
I don't think someone has to first think of every single thing that might happen before posting an idea, thats what other people are for. But it's not enough to say "lets do it like that, ta-daa!".

I didn't said that everyone must think really deep before posting ... but would do no good if we become sarcastic. if you will say that you weren't sarcatic when you said that ... I will apologize in public !!!
I didn't said : "lets do it, ta-daa". If you will read my first post regarding this formula ... it begins with : "Because I understand that no big change can happen ... I voted for no change. But if this would be posible I have another idea ... maybe will help for other issues in the future."

Aurion wrote:
Unless someone has an idea how to prevent this issues without making people laugh at the penalty it's just not practicable.

Who laughed ???


It's obvious that (at least) for me this became a bit personal lately and I want to apologize to the rest of the guys and to Maelstroem. I didn't wanted this and I am ready reprimanded( by the moderator Wink ).
But I still believe that what was writen here can be usefull in the future for other issues.
_________________
Councilor of the House Assisi in the house Nemesis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nikoy
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 19:37    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont think this discussion is constructive - its too broad and unfocused. In addition the whole thing is about what CAN'T be done, not what CAN!

I said I like Assisi's idea because this is one possible way to overcome the problem and this is true. Yes, the detailes have to be polished, but this is not as impossible as Aurion thinks.

Examples:

1. The tax for the ship transfer may be set in such a way to be more manageable, not so high (cheaper then to build again those possibly lost ships).

2. Not ALL, but some % (say 50%) of the income gets confiscated if you don't have the money. Thus your economy won't be shut down when you are at zero! Even if one is almost always at deficit (like myself) he has to replenish his credits sooner or later, right?

3. Some time delay can be set, which to be enough for the affected player to find financial help.


Also stick to the facts please - I never said that I need so many monts to re-build my fleet. The time for re-building a fleet from ANY size is a function of the number of shipyards one has and availability of ship parts and money, plus the shipping and hull production times. Ultimately you can build a fleet of ANY size and ANY composition for 6 days maximum!
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 20:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

skipped most of the previous posts as I don't have that much time to write right now.

But, here are the various solutions we could implement instead of the current ship loss rule:
I've already seen this one but I thought it was great:
1. Ships are turned offline (not disassembled) and sent (at the current commodity transport speed) to the nearest planet/shipyard to be turned back online.

2. Implement the long-discussed "jumpship"/"subwarplanet" or whatever name you want for it

3. Implement some alliance management, so that imperators/houses can ally, so that even if two imperators do not belong in the same house, ships from any of those allied players can be moved on allied WPs/planets.
This one is, I guess, the easiest to implement, all it would need is a further elaboration of the differences between houses and alliances. (my idea would be that alliances are much stricter than house, where in houses, you can go independent at any time, alliances cannot be broken without great penalties...)
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Kosmor Forum Index -> Feedback / suggestions for improvement All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group