I suspect the answer will be something to do with TUs, but how about instead of running two turns on one day you simply set a switch on the server that runs 75 TUs per day over the next 4 turn runs?
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ May 20 2005, 01:55 PM) |
| Here's a possibly radical thought. Why do we need to have double turns at all? I suspect the answer will be something to do with TUs, but how about instead of running two turns on one day you simply set a switch on the server that runs 75 TUs per day over the next 4 turn runs? |
...with starbases having a double-turn update (Monday then Tuesday to keep standing orders working in propoer sequence) on the Tuesday? Hmmm... it sounds good in principle, at least as a point for discussion?
the original idea was to use Saturdays - But I can quite understand Mica not wanting to do that!
Dan
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ May 20 2005, 02:33 PM) | ||
...with starbases having a double-turn update (Monday then Tuesday to keep standing orders working in propoer sequence) on the Tuesday? Hmmm... it sounds good in principle, at least as a point for discussion? the original idea was to use Saturdays - But I can quite understand Mica not wanting to do that! Dan |
Wouldnt this still cause the same double-day battle though if a base is involved? If it didnt, then the starbase gains an edge in combat over that period (a base gets updated and resupplied when the attackers are left waiting).
Mark
| QUOTE (Brother Tenor @ May 20 2005, 12:27 PM) |
| Would it be feasible to somehow only allow one battle per day even on double-turn days? I think most people see launching a double-turn attack as, if not cheating in the strict sense of word, distinctly unfair. |
I'll ignore the emotive comments and simply say that if a change were thought to be necessary, then your idea of having a single battle seems good. It might have wider implications though - same as with Dans idea, it effectively means bases, etc that have update days will gain an edge on these occasions. This wouldnt just be for defence, but in attack too (they attack during the once-only battle turn, but then get two lots of updates/resupplies).
Another such day is coming up and there are multiple combats going on now too....
Mark
| QUOTE (FLZPD @ May 20 2005, 05:29 PM) |
| they attack during the once-only battle turn, but then get two lots of updates/resupplies |
A base will never get two updates in one week. If a base updates on a Monday it will get its update on the first half of the "double run", if it normally updates on a Tuesday it will update in the second half.
Where will it get two lots of resupplies from?
| QUOTE (FLZPD @ May 20 2005, 05:29 PM) |
| Another such day is coming up and there are multiple combats going on now too.... |
I think most people would see a difference between continuing a battle over a double-turn and starting one to coincide with it. It's not likely (and far too complicated, leading to mistakes/recriminations/bad blood instead of good sportsmanship) for all sides to cease hostilities over the bank holiday turns.
There is nothing wrong with double turns as they do not favour either side.
The same rules apply for and against everybody. If you have vulnerable assets then it is your own fault if you fail to protect them properly, knowing that a "communication breakdown" is imminent. Or alternatively, it is your own fault if you fail to assault your enemy when given an opportunity, knowing that the same opportunity exists for your enemy as well.
By the same token, while the defender cannot respond for another day, the attacker cannot withdraw if the attack fails or if he ran into a trap. It's always a gamble with similar risk for both sides.
Launching an attack on a double turn therefore is not unfair in my opinion. It is taking considerable risks.
Finally, double turns make quick response fleets less valuable, which is something people whined for when the DTR Hyper Jump capable warfleet was percieved as a threat to game balance.
And also once you attack once during a comms blackout, you're open to being attacked yourself. It's all fair-play swings and roundabouts I think. Yes, the Consortium were subjected to it this time, but maybe they'll get the upper hand next time a comms blackout comes around.
For the record, I personally am pleased that the gentlemans agreement between the IMP-bloc and the DTR/CNF about not attacking during Comms blackouts holds, and I hope it continues to hold for a good long time.
It always adds a little extra tension though, when the comms blackouts come round. Which, is a good thing, in my opinion. More tactical options to be considered.
| QUOTE (Frabby @ May 21 2005, 11:10 AM) |
| I am strongly opposed to almost everything said in this thread. |
I also agree with Stephan and his line of reasoning is why I decided to do the attack.
While reserving the right to still criticise those who take advantage of it ;-)
| QUOTE (Brother Tenor @ May 21 2005, 02:37 PM) |
| While reserving the right to still criticise those who take advantage of it ;-) |
But then again, what if the Conosrtium had managed to catch me and my allies fleet and give us large amount of damage?
Would they complain then? No. They would brag about it until the end of time.
Yes it's the same for both sides, that the attacker has a large advantage over a defender (so long as they don't hit the wrong target, always a risk) - but why should a real-world event like that have such an impact on the game universe? you might as well have rules that differ depending on which day of the week it is - a lot more extreme example, but the same underlying principle....
Dan
| QUOTE (Thali Rahm @ May 21 2005, 02:45 PM) | ||
But then again, what if the Conosrtium had managed to catch me and my allies fleet and give us large amount of damage? Would they complain then? No. They would brag about it until the end of time. |
This thread is a discussion over game mechanics - the specifics of actual attacks are not directly relevant, merely the concept that such attacks are possible in the game as things stand. Using such language as "brag about it until the end of time" just personalises the discussion into an argument between two sides of an in-game war - something I would prefer not to see on this wholly OOC forum
Dan
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ May 21 2005, 06:37 PM) |
| This thread is a discussion over game mechanics - the specifics of actual attacks are not directly relevant, merely the concept that such attacks are possible in the game as things stand. Using such language as "brag about it until the end of time" just personalises the discussion into an argument between two sides of an in-game war - something I would prefer not to see on this wholly OOC forum |
Quite right.
It doesn't mean that surprise attacks are not possible, but people doing an surprise attack will have only ONE day in which they can attack without the other side having an chance to react.
The entire strategy of the game revolves around it, you can save up tu's (hyperdrived ships) to move faster, you can programm in orders for your ships.. etc etc.
The double turn attacks takes that even chance of defense AWAY from the defender, but does add it to the attacker, which looks unfair to me. Its like an complete outsider keeping down an opponents while the other guy does some more kicking.
Phoenix is all about outwititng your opponents with better strategies, designs etc etc. What does this have to do with attacking an opponents when you know he can't respond, because KJC will send in an second round in the next couple of seconds???
Lucky enough there are not many players who actively does this kind of attack and the avarage negative response is good.
| QUOTE (Sjaak @ May 22 2005, 09:04 AM) |
| Phoenix is all about outwititng your opponents with better strategies, designs etc etc. |
Isn't this exactly what happened?
This is a game, not reality. And as with all games we have a set of rules defined, in this case by the Phoenix code. It is up to all players to use that to benefit their own faction or themselves.
If you, or anyone else, decide that this advantage is something you will not use that is ok with me. But the rules allow it, that is a fact. Saying that a player is a bad player because he use what is allowed within the game is very low in my opinion.
It is the game mechanics that control this game. I only use what is available to me. Like I would do in real life.
| QUOTE (Thali Rahm @ May 22 2005, 10:29 AM) | ||
Isn't this exactly what happened? If you, or anyone else, decide that this advantage is something you will not use that is ok with me. But the rules allow it, that is a fact. Saying that a player is a bad player because he use what is allowed within the game is very low in my opinion. It is the game mechanics that control this game. I only use what is available to me. Like I would do in real life. |
The advantage of the double turn is NOT inside the game, but outside the game.
You get two turn reports, people who have bases running on tuesday and ask for an update will get two turn reports, monday and tuesday.
If Mica had decided to just give an 120 tus turn and process all monday/tuesday updates on the same moment (without an SECOND run) the double turn advantage would be gone. It shouldn't be that hard to programm, just check for every position thats due on monday and tuesday to get processes instead of only the monday positions on the first run and the tuesday positions on the second run.
| QUOTE (Sjaak @ May 22 2005, 11:14 AM) |
| If Mica had decided to just give an 120 tus turn and process all monday/tuesday updates on the same moment (without an SECOND run) the double turn advantage would be gone. It shouldn't be that hard to programm, just check for every position thats due on monday and tuesday to get processes instead of only the monday positions on the first run and the tuesday positions on the second run. |
I agree to this and the reason I welcome this discussion is that perhaps we can agree to something. The way it works today is ok with me but I do understand that many players want a different system that avoid this kind of situations. I have already seen some good suggestions of how to solve this. Yours is one of them.