IF this idea is to be implemented, the details would require much tweaking.

The fact is on Speed and Xtreme (Don't know about normal) there ARE several players who don't need to fleet save. Should this be considered a game dynamic problem? If yes, then we can evaluate this idea, if not, then ignore it. (many people would argue it's not a problem)

The only way this will work is making this weapon expensive, cost deuterium to launch, and percentage based. (making it more like a fleet strike)

Disadvantage is that, other than fleet limit/movement control, this weapon will serve very little purpose.

There's always a problem with these "Great Equalizer" ideas. I actually call them shortcuts to the top. Ok, now before I make my statement, you have to know a few things.

The first is that these "fleet hoggers" were in your situation once. They've worked hard enough to deserve to not fleetsave. And they continue to do that by keeping all opposing fleets down. Meaning the only way to get to their level is to fleetsave constantly, no matter how expensive it gets. The second is that whatever you can build, the top players can build more and build them faster.

So, here's my statement against this "tactical fleet destroyer." Frankly, it would end fleeting as we know it. The top players could just mass produce missiles and crash each other's fleets, or save themselves 30 minutes and shoot a smaller player's fleet. Of course, that wouldn't yield profit, but if they're in a time crunch, you're out a fleet.

Zerggross wrote:

harryballsac wrote:yes i know this player you are talking about and schnitter is right. ive spied him numerous times and he always has profit sitting there. i even tried to help him early on and one of my main points to him was to NOT DO THAT.

the idea of "punnishing" players that keep large fleets is laughable. you want to keep your resource safe while you are offline, FLEETSAVE. you want to build big fleets, use those rubies for this purpose, and still remember to FLEETSAVE.

you did not even read my initial post right, dude. I am not punishing fleet-savers. Please don't post if you don't even read carefully.

well evidently you didn't actually read harry's post that you quoted, since he did not actually mention punishing fleet-savers.

and as for the idea of penalizing people for having massive fleets, that will never happen. Try putting yourself in the shoes of these powerful players. if you had a massive fleet, would you want to be penalized for it? No of course not!

Also, it is not the attacker's fault if their target quits the game after being hit (Not only that, quitting after a hit just shows you don't need to be playing this WAR GAME anyways). If you fleet-save properly and don't leave your stuff laying around, chances are the people with the top fleets won't bother attacking you unless you do something to provoke them.

meow2 wrote:IF this idea is to be implemented, the details would require much tweaking.

The fact is on Speed and Xtreme (Don't know about normal) there ARE several players who don't need to fleet save. Should this be considered a game dynamic problem? If yes, then we can evaluate this idea, if not, then ignore it. (many people would argue it's not a problem)

The only way this will work is making this weapon expensive, cost deuterium to launch, and percentage based. (making it more like a fleet strike)

Disadvantage is that, other than fleet limit/movement control, this weapon will serve very little purpose.

I have to give you credit here for thinking logically meow2, and I'm inclined to agree with this post of yours.

How about we continue the part of the thread on 'Play Balance' on a new thread: Balance and play feel?

& Discussion about 'Tac Fleet destroyer' weopon options on this one?

BTW My prefered option 'Ship Maintenance Cost' is hardly 'punishment', just a dose of reallife, and incidentally, an infinitely adjustable option - Who just wants infinite fleet size as the main game aspiration goal: It's what we got now though: A big game issue and needs discussing.

IMO ship maintenance cost should only be imposed upon acs defend missions that goes on defending for more than 0 sec.