| Author |
Safe Zone Idea |
BLACKHAWK(ENGLAND)
Cadet
Joined: March 19, 2006
Posts: 268
From: Manchester, England
|  Posted: 2007-03-25 23:06
Ok, well what i have planed can work if thing go the right way. I say you lock 1 home planet of all factions and leave the others open for noobs etc.
example, Earth,Ex and sag are locked at FA. Luna,Min and Leaph are left open for noobs to do what they like under FA.
Its a safe way of keeping at least 1 tech planet if not 2 away from sabatarge also the star port will have to be filled and stuff moved around so we dont end up with CL and juck cloging up our star ports etc.
If there is a item that is in the FA star port you want, its free to take you just cant make enything as thats what the noob planet is for and the other will be taken care of by the vets evertime someone is on they will need to add stuff we use or need and move juck if the SP is getting to full.
I'm willing to do it on the kluth side. but im not on 24/7 so there will have to be more looking out for it.
we just need some for icc and ugto so we are SAFE not sabed every 5 mins by someone.
_________________
Signature too large, please resize-Dam Admins!
"03:01:01 Rogue Spear: When i first read Squad Broken, i thought Squad Broken was actually Rev's life story"
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-03-26 08:18
Read the dev log. Starports no longer stock items in 1.484, so that'll stop most sabatuers, and I believe the locking thing is going to be done after 1.484.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2007-03-26 08:19 ]
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2007-03-27 13:16
The dev log mentions nothing about starports no longer stocking items? There's no mention of starports at all.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-03-27 14:42
I believe the unofficial dev talk/log/whatnot mentioned it.
_________________
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2007-03-29 11:20
Well, with upgrade paths and whatnot, factories won't be producing gadgets for upgrading/modding. Therefore, starports won't be stocking them.
Its in there, just kinda "between the lines."
So in the past we had Earth,etc Locked at F or GA, and the moons open to fiddling.. but this received complaints. We've had them both locked briefly, but that received more complaints. Now we've had them unlocked for a long time, and we've gotten a thread with some complaints after a few months of silence. I see this as a success for the current system, since the locked planets received more complaints more quickly - and after all, you can't please everyone.
The other option that comes to mind, since Earth,etc were still used for modding originally, is to just remove all its factories (starport can stay to keep it minerally stocked) and use the moon exclusively for modding. It would be unlocked so people can use the factories freely, while Earth would be locked to avoid starport scrappage.
But that doesn't really solve the problem that exists in the first place of starports being scrapped... in fact, nothing does save locking planets high, which then makes factory use impossible for underranked players.
Any other brilliant ideas then? Honestly, I think our current one is the best we can do for the most players. Every plan will have its downside, and they've all been discussed ad nauseum in the public a while ago and within the staff forums - the consensus has been that our current free and unlocked system is best.
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2007-03-29 18:11
Well, since the coming of upgrade paths, the need for starports and factories will diminish greatly, and thus, locking planets wont be such a big deal.
I think we could create a system in which a high ranked player could give a lower ranking player 'permission' to modify a planet. It can only extend to that planet, and can be revoked at will by the player who granted it. It also would be cancelled out if the player that was given permission logs out for longer than 2 minutes.
-Ent
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2007-04-06 10:52
Quote:
|
On 2007-03-29 11:20, Mithrandir wrote:
Any other brilliant ideas then? Honestly, I think our current one is the best we can do for the most players.
|
|
This would be outside of current code bounds, but what I see quite viable is:
Certain planets would require more then one person to delete/turn off buildings or destroy units.
OR
Buildings aren't automatically deleted or turn'd off, but are done so every hour or x ammount of minutes after they are asked to be deleted or turned off.
_________________
|
Peter Wiggin
Midshipman
Joined: November 10, 2005
Posts: 636
| Posted: 2007-04-06 11:52
Quote:
|
On 2007-04-06 10:52, Fattierob (x2 Unification of Japan) wrote:
This would be outside of current code bounds, but what I see quite viable is:
Certain planets would require more then one person to delete/turn off buildings or destroy units.
OR
Buildings aren't automatically deleted or turn'd off, but are done so every hour or x ammount of minutes after they are asked to be deleted or turned off.
|
|
The first one I agree with to a point. What if you are the only one there and you need to scrap inf to raise the population, or you are building and you need to scrap the research labs. Requiring someone else to "second" your deletion isn't very logical.
Also, the second one. That is even worse, because of the same reason. You are building and you need to scrap the lower end buildings. You would have to wait an hour at the planet to be able to build anything.
Maybe a variation of the first one.
Someone of a lower rank wants to scrap, they initiate it and ask someone with a higher rank(than the planets lock cap) to confirm it. When the person of the higher rank confirms it, they should not lose any prestige for it(though I see how this could easily be abused with clones)
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
