Settings and activity
74 results found
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment 
Whisperer
commented
The actual name for this feature is Holiday Mode. It is well documented. In addition, a link to the page is in the Index.
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
Near the top of the Badges documentation is a list of what badges are needed for any specific rank. While this doesn't solve the problem, it might make the task easier.
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
I've seen several of the forums, including the "halion" forum, disappear recently. Apparently that portion of this request has been addressed.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
> The replacement player need watch a situation before it decide to play. For this, it must join a game then resign without any penalty.
Absolutely. How many turns does it take to do that? I usually know within 5 turns that I'm not in the right game. I figure somewhere between 10 and 20 turns should be plenty for just about any player.
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
This concept was discussed in this thread:
Whisperer
shared this idea
·
-
57 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
Challengespaceyard has something like this in BETA.
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
I believe that the OP is requesting that the "NRP" friendly code (or something similar) disable the use of supplies to repair the ship. While this would be useful for gameplay, it would not represent the way things happen in the "real world".
The crew of a ship knows that their lives depend on the repair state of their ship. When a ship is damaged, it is normal for the crew to do everything in their power to repair the damage, as long as it doesn't reduce the combat effectiveness of the ship. This is what Joshua has implemented. While it's not always convenient, I believe that it's the best way for the game to work.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
I've seen this from time to time. It's usually because one of the critical WWW services isn't fully operational. These errors should be transient. When seen, you should wait a few minutes before trying again.
-
35 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
In the vast majority of cases, the AI isn't smart enough to replace a player. It's barely good enough for the MvM games. Beyond that, the AI won't perform significantly better than no player at all.
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
There were several changes to the Hotkeys recently. All the changes requested by the OP, except the 'q' key, have been performed.
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
If someone's looking into the hotkeys, then it might be a good idea to have the '+' and '-' not zoom in/out when the Build Structures window is open.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
I believe that this is an actual bug in the JavaScript Client, and should be reported to Joshua & Big Beefer as such, using the CONTACT link.
Good catch.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
The suggestions presented here are quite poor, when Joshua's apparent goals for Tenacity are considered.
> 1) The percentage of turns played vs turns you should have played! So if you played 75% of your turns that would be your tenacity rating!
There used to be a turns component to Tenacity. It was removed. Plainly, this is not the direction that Joshua wants to go. It should be noted that "missing a turn" (usually choosing to not click "Done") could be a strategic move in the gameplay.
> 2) The percentage of games played + games still active to the number of total games signed up for! So if you signed up for 10 games, dropped or resigned 2, and finished or are still active in 8 games, your tenacity would be 80%!
Based on the two different versions of Tenacity, it is obvious that Joshua considers a player's recent actions to be more important to their Tenacity than their historic actions (I agree). Your proposal would weight all actions, regardless of how long ago, the same.
Furthermore, some game exits have a greater impact on the overall game than others. This was mostly resolved in the latest version of Tenacity. The only improvement I can think of here would be an additional 10 point penalty for being dropped due to missed turns.
----------------------
Several possible resolutions to your specific problem were discussed in the thread (I remember the discussion, but don't have the link handy). The suggestions of completely restructuring the way Tenacity works were not well received. The suggestion of limiting the per-day or per-week drop is the one that received the most in-thread support. I would support a change of that nature, but there is no way I would even consider supporting any of the suggestions previously made here.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
I believe that this is the result of using the old forum to post a message. To post, please use the new forum, either by posting from the activity feed, or by posting from somewhere under "http://planets.nu/#/activity".
-
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
After the Tenacity changes a while ago, this only impacts the statistics. There is no impact on Tenacity.
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
This should effect Tenacity as well. While it's inappropriate to give full credit for a turn that hasn't been completed (turn done not checked), I believe that at least partial credit would be given. I believe that an opened, but not completed, turn should be treated as a Holiday turn.
-
0 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
The Vide-Admiral rank has been added.
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
Cadets are the same as Midshipmen, just in a different academy (Colorado Springs or West Point vs. Annapolis). As we're dealing with nautical ranks and nomenclature, it's probably better to continue calling them Midshipmen.
On the other hand, it should be noted that Midshipmen are ranked by class, from 4th to 1st. Breaking the single Midshipman rank up into classes would add three new ranks to the list.
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
This error has been documented: http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/FuelEstimateErrors
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
Several fuel usage errors have been found and described in this thread:
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
This error is currently documented: http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/FuelEstimateErrors
Due to the interaction of the starship and planet, and the potential complexity when multiple starships are LFMing from a planet, it's quite difficult to determine exactly how much mass will be gained when the LFM is performed.
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
A similar issue exists with the Gather missions. If you manually transfer the minerals and supplies to the carrier, the mass reduction of the actual creation is handled properly ... usually.
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
IMHO, when a starship is out of fuel, those missions and actions that require fuel to function should be greyed out and do nothing. The one exception to this is if the starship jettisons all its fuel, the jettison action should be available for the remainder of that turn, to allow some of the fuel to not be jettisoned, or to allow other resources to be added to the jettison chamber.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
The fewer launch bays a carrier has, the less likely they will be to launch a fighter. This is by design.
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Whisperer
commented
With the Starbase Fighter Transfer that has now become part of the Standard games, I don't believe this applies any more. Gorbies need LOTS of fighters.
I believe that would be a suboptimal solution. A better solution would be to have more "Allies=0" games available.
The Emperor is supposed to clearly demonstrate their ability to conquer all other players in the field. The title would be diluted if a game could be won by an alliance.