BUT as things now stand, or shall shortly stand, I'm feeling more reassured:Nuada wrote:Moons surely would remain quite important if the Planet to Moon FS wasn't lanxable. What this now compels is one of two things: 1) Membership in an established alliance where those with large fleets can Moonshot those with resources enough to create a debris field - and then pray that this Moonshot is among the merely 19% that succeed; or 2) Spend 500 rubies in a game where the spending of rubies has previously not been necessary to successfully play the game. This is an automatic disadvantage, in a major gamechanging way, for those unallied and for those new to the game regardless of being allied or not.Zorg wrote: The meaning is that if you want to fleet save safely, you need a moon. Before this, you did not need one. This was wrong. Moons are meant to be very important in the game.
And, even if a player does manage the necessary two moons, the popping of one destroys that FS attempt. How "wrong" the prior status quo was seems among your player base a subject of debate.
Many, perhaps most, of the top fleeters have RIPs numbering in the thousands. If they want to pop a moon, they will - and it would not then be difficult to calculate interception time.Zorg wrote:A 9600 diameter moon needs at least 153 deathstars to get a roll, which may fail and which may cost the attacking player his fleet. If a player wants to take this risk to take down your moon, he should be able to get the chance to also catch your fleet. (Not to mention that the chance to catch your fleet is not great enough, especially if you have many moons)
If you feel too uneasy about it, try getting larger moons.
I believe the concern not to be from those being attacked, but from the stalker.Zorg wrote:You are right, you are no longer safe to attack from your moon for example, your fleet will appear on phalanx. But it would still appear on the player you were attacking, right ?
By the way:Nuada wrote:A necessary correction, for which I'm grateful. When I first tested the lanxing of Moon to Planet attack, I saw the return time.Administrator wrote:When a fleet is coming from a Moon, you can only see its hit time, not its return time.
Yes, implementation of this would be reassuring.Administrator wrote:A) Any recalled deploy mission either sent from a Moon or a Planet.
Currently it shows time but not fleet composition. We can accept this proposal and completely remove it (it will show no fleet movement in this case) as it makes full sense.
This was not the concern. I believe the central issue with Expedition Moon was that Expedition Moon cannot be popped. Moons in other galaxies may be mapped, and espionage conducted. Planets nearby these moons may be lanxed. Nothing in outerspace is conducive to conduct of espionage, and outer space can't be lanxed. In short, the issue would not appear to have been with moons, but with somehow being able to travel to moons in outer space when no 'destination' in outer space should be able to be targeted.Zorg wrote:There was a multi page thread in BUGs where most agreed that a fleet starting from a planet and going to slot 16 should be visible on phalanx. It does not make sense to me to have fleets going to outer space from planet visible but those going to moon hidden. It sounds like an inconsistency.
From one hand you want us to remove the option to an easy fleet save to outer space and in the other hand you care about the small players who will not be able to get moonshots?
It does not sound right.
I am concerned about those smaller players not able to get moonshots. The fact that they can no longer FS to someone's moon now puts them at considerable disadvantage, while also removing an alliance utility through which stronger members could assist the weaker. The above noted corrections regarding return time and fleet recall do help make this more palatable, yet I can't help but suspect several exigencies and contingencies may not have been taken into consideration in how this was implemented without player base input.
For now, the corrections permit me that stance of, "Let's see how this affects gameplay." With the noted modifications, this enhanced phalanx may make a game out of what would - without them - essentially have transformed the newest among us into little more than lambs led to slaughter. My hope is that these modifications might instead facilitate improved game play. I'm looking forward to Gozar's rejoinder.
His proposals are very reasonable, and I'm pleased to see they're being weighed.