TheLegendFishpond wrote: Spy this is exactly why it should be bought in. The fact we are chasing your fleet and popping your moons is an attack strategy. Why should we miss out on your return flight just because you want to VM coz you are being attacked.

Thank you Spy for clarifying the exact reason it should be changed. Enjoy your break.

you need to read up as u might have not really looked in to my suggestions on how to prevent exploits. i have given my reasoning why i should not be prevented the vmode because you really do not have any clue about when and at which location my fleet is returning. all you have a previous probe results. you do not know if i have changed location before sending them afar. I am for changing the vmode system by all means but not with the expense of players who have their fleet at safe voyage. as i have mentioned my fleet was and still is safe from any lanx attack.

what myrsee have suggested is a compromise and it is really gives out power to fleeters. the knowledge of someone have a fleet and the sure kill at a precise timestamp to land a lanx attack is totally different i hope from your fleeting experience you would have known it by now. if not try consulting that with much experienced fleeter like myrsee who agreed upon the suggestion i provided. i am not saying i have given a full proof fix it sure needs tossing and turning but that is a start.

regarding myrsee's suggestion, i believe it is a compromise sort of a full proof fix. it still poses some downfalls. still much to be discussed. if it is a compromise it is u are looking for then the current vmode is all but that it is. no need to change it. as i have discussed with him on it, it is not an easy fix so this would be one of the major fix that would change the game itself. in that light lets really find a solution that would not be a cause of another exploit, or unfair to any side.

Istalris wrote:I think the 'Unable to VM if the flying fleet is not attached to a moon' suggestion works better. Covers more loopholes and makes it fairer for both sides.

i believe this is still not the perfect solution but at least it takes the lanx issue under consideration. i am pressing on the issue if there is no one attacking u should not be refused of the vmode in any ways.

Even though I've seen lots of different suggestions, we all do agree that the VM option needs to be changed/altered.
From this point I would like to have zorg 's word in this too.
Perhaps later on we can create a poll or something to make it more cleared.

Well said Jedi.

It seems only one person is actually veto'ing these and they are in VMode anyway.

Istalris wrote:I think the 'Unable to VM if the flying fleet is not attached to a moon' suggestion works better. Covers more loopholes and makes it fairer for both sides.

If this suggestion also Stipulates an exception for players that are still in player protection then I think it could work.

Hm...I haven't been active in awhile on these forums but I noticed this and with so much debate I feel like I should join a side.
Vacation Mode the greatest gift Zorg gave unto us, what was it like before Vm came around, were you there? how would you know? Well I was there and the hard work a player went through measures to make was totally laid waste to in about 48 hours 4 attacks per planet, could take a toll, right? imagine 2 weeks of inactive and no vm, that can make a person uncertain. Now to class what some call "Cowardly" which is in my opinion senseless,lets make a comparison "do you have a car, need to travel 30 miles, why walk when you can drive" if you don't get what I'm saying, then when something comes out that is benefical you use it and don't complain, so about what is called "cowardly" besides a game do you have RL things? Family,relationships,jobs, tragic occurings like family death and damage to the house by weather? what you call Cowardly is the RL which we must deal with before we can enjoy ourselfs on this truly amazing game, and this was to everyone, no pointing fingers or blame games, just basic fact.
I can agree to " a player not going into vm before the fleet returns", but only to calm those that want a little more than they have currently, I do the same for other topics I want more but wait and listen.
VM added less worry for those that had RL things that were important to them also, so lets not push to rid the game of more players, like the saying "don't fix what isn't broken". Some may indeed abuse the feature but that does not outweigh the ones that need and use it for the right purpose. There are 100 top players and maybe 900 others that have opinions, the main question I'm wondering now is does several of the 100 top outweigh 900 other players based on point level and influence?Remember how you started out, NEW like the rest of us, if you chose to not go into vm when called out due to RL, congrats to you for supporting your belief.

Rishard I hope you did read all the posts in this topic since atm we all agreed to stop abuses of VM but not removing it for those honest players (such as me)
I too don't want to get rid of VM but I also want the game to be fair and not that the feature will be used to escape.
Thats why we are in need of a good solution with no losses at all.

ehh..I read through the most part of it but some was just rubbish..so some I had to skip on, plus this topic looked loppsided and I decided to not just listen but help you and spy out.
hmm..well yes a more fair game would good, but I think they'd probably decide to put restrictions on everyone as a group when using vm, so its a little unsetting for a honest player about possibilities. There really isn't many opinions..there was one about cutting down on how many times a player could attack a planet like instead of 5 it'd be 4 or less in 24 hours, perhaps that would help keep a player from needing to abuse the Vm feature?..any agreements here?
Also to any objections due to reduction to amounts of times you could attack a player, "there are many fish in the sea so move on to another"

From now on, in both universes, STATISTICS will NOT be updated when a player has been for long time(10 days or more since the time he hit the VMODE option) in vmode. Instead, he will receive no rank at all.

Once a player returns from VMODE, the stat will run as usual at next update.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Regarding the other proposed changes; when you will be able to enter VMODE, since we believe in emergencies, we will try to get the best solution possible. This issue will be looked in shortly. As it is now, if you enter VMODE while you got a fleet building, there is a bug that will extend this time so it is short of no option anyway already. This however has to be either fixed or removed as a possibility. Regarding buildings, I am not entirely sure but I think that they work correctly and the bug with fleet construction is not affecting buildings as well. It will be checked as well.

Once both are checked, we will select the quickest solution available for the time being.

Apologies if there are more suggestions regarding vmode in this thread, I will read all posts later to make sure everything is covered.

I woke up today and found 3 of my alliance mates were gone from the list, that could have been a pretty tough blow in the gut. but then realized all of them are enjoying long vacations, so checked the forum and voila

good nice to see i got a big jump over inactives hehe. anyway one point i like to address to, what happenes to alliances when the leader is in vmode? would like a bit of guidance in that matter, so that it can be dealt with in future events.

Ok so when is the VM rule changing. Hearing from you Zorg i liked the implement you are installing that why there is a building queue or fleet queue you cant VM and i further stand by it. The reason being its quite obvious a few in the game are using this to there advantage, coming out of vmode, waiting 24 hours for resources then building a fleet and VModing again. So im looking forward to this introduction.