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
Nella
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 20:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
Aurion
Member of the House


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

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 22:20    Post subject: Reply with quote

@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.
_________________
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: Sat Aug 08, 2009 01:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alphabravo
Major


Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 827
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Maelstroem,
Maelstroem wrote:
It is absolutely impossible to "patch" this behaviour in K1, so don't ask Green!.


Right, I'll ask, just on the offchance that you haven't considered my idea, which might be easier to implement.

Code:

if(previous_instant_jump_would have occured)
{
create warplanet_ jumpTransport1;
the_ships_which_would_have_jumped -> flyTo(jumpTransport1);
}

where warplanet_ is a class much like a warplanet, except that it cannot have its course set, it will automatically fly to the nearest allied planet at a rate of 80%*the slowest speed ships on board.

Thus, if you want your goliaths to move faster, introduce a kill feature, where your h1s can be turned into spacedust.


if(ship_is_on_ship_transporter)
{
allow controls on the ship menu = false;
}

if(ship_transporter_is_on_allied_planet)
{
ships -> flyTo(planet);
}


I will not vote, but please adjust the totals accordingly:

If you think that this is definitely impossible: give my vote to "keep things as is" (do not implement patch).
_________________
Major alphabravo in the house Ashera


Last edited by alphabravo on Sun Aug 09, 2009 13:40; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Aurion
Member of the House


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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 19:48    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 18:28    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...
Back to top
Assisi
Councillor of the House


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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 23:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
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: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

He meant slowest speed ships, to clarify things, not highest.
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
alphabravo
Major


Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 827
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Twisted Evil
Back to top
Maelstroem
Commander


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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 16:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

K2 unfortunately will not be ready for testing for some time - it is the biggest project I have ever engaged in...Wink. 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
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: Mon Aug 10, 2009 18:28    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Darius
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 15:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aurion wrote:
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.


Aurion, was it not you who created the poll? Unless we live under a regime a proportional representation, which in any case can not be applied to this scenario, then we must accept the option which attracts more votes than any of the others, even though as a standalone option is represents the minority view, that is politics!

As this is politics and in an effort to make it more realistic, I'd like to bring in a bit of corruption too. So, to the players that have not voted yet, I shall pay a billion credits to the voter who ensures option two is the winner Wink

(sorry guys, just a joke!) Cool
Back to top
Assisi
Councillor of the House


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

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 15:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cleric
Commander


Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 311
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 20:16    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
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 4 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