Settings and activity
6 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
69 votes
Chanain
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Chanain
commented
Killagain, IP tracking is commonly used to flag potential 'multiple account' problems in online games - typically leading to a manual review to determine if, in fact, there's something inappropriate going on. (Looking for message trails could be misleading, but significant and consistent cooperation, aligned activity times, etc., between people with the same IP...well, it'd be sketchy at best. Put another way, if you and your boys frequently played the same games, and always cooperated, then you might end up being a 'false positive', so to speak.)
In some other online games, there's a ban on interaction between accounts played from the same IP - which makes even more sense in the Planets framework, just imposing an outright ban on multiple players from the same household in public games: It would make enforcement much simpler, and while it would affect your ability to play in public games *against* your boys, all three of you would still be able to play.
-
53 votesChanain
supported this idea
·
-
120 votesChanain
supported this idea
·
-
29 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chanain
commented
This makes sense. And, again, the 'alternate account' phenomenon is a problem that emerges here as well: When a new player gets penalized for dropping games by losing tenacity, it's not much of a penalty when they can easily create a new account again at 100% tenacity.
The corollary of this is that, imo, tenacity shouldn't move over time toward 100%, but rather toward its original base level - I'd probably say 50% makes the most sense, but the specific figure is unimportant - and that there should be other bonuses that are easier to obtain than at present.
So I see this a little differently than Whisperer. I take Whisperer as suggesting a system that's more-or-less identical to the status quo, but that merely imposes the equivalent of a 40-point tenacity penalty (though I take his point about it not being 'penalizing') until completion of a game. I see the potential for a system that's more dynamic, where you start at a neutral level of tenacity, but you earn bonuses every time you finish a game, or fight to the bitter end, so that you can earn your way into games for those who have consistently shown themselves to be reliable players, instead of expecting every player to be at 100 (or maybe a little higher) unless they have a recent history of resigning/dropping.
Chanain
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesChanain
supported this idea
·
Chanain
shared this idea
·
As a matter of principle, it's very clear that certain racial advantages, in fact, are designed to work with captured/traded ships. Consider, for a moment, Federation "Loki Immunity". If that worked only with native Federation ships, it would be completely useless, as the Feds have no native cloakers. A newer example would be the 'squadron repair' feature of Super Refit. Again, the Feds have no native squadrons; simply put, this racial advantage *was* designed to work with other races' ships.
Heck, even Cloning and Advanced Cloning qualify as 'racial advantages'.
Ultimately, the general principle you propose, that racial advantages should apply only to native hulls, is a non-starter.
To the extent that a handful of interactions create pretty powerful phenomena - like the Fed Biocide - we can argue about the game balance implications, and whether some more specific change should be made to fix those balance issues...but those are relatively narrow issues, which don't lead in any way to the conclusion that captured cloakers shouldn't be Loki Immune, or that the Privateers shouldn't be able to use captured ships to rob other ships, etc.