I don't like the ruby payment method.
This will be a pain in the *** if you have something coming up twice in 1 month time.
I play ZE over 1,5 year now and only needed to VM because of internet problems.
But what if I get some other problems popping up in 1 month, and need to VM twice.
That means it wouldn't be allowed to even though I don't use it frequently.


I still stick with the idea of Myrsee

Jedi wrote:I don't like the ruby payment method

I like limiting when you can enter VM better than paying with rubies also I was only giving another option.

KarrothMelu wrote:I don't like that, as there are weekend warriors who go VM during the week. They shouldn't have to pay to use VM.

Perhaps there could be a weekend warrior vacation mode (WWVM). With WWVM you would enter VM protection 48 hours after it was selected and you would have to stay in WWVM for 120 hours (5 days). To make it clear the WWVM would be a completely separate option from the regular VM Another option to implement with WWVM is to increase the number of days required to be in VM based on how frequently you use it.

first time in last 30 days VM for 3 days
Second time in last 30 days VM for 6 days
Third time in last 30 days VM for 9 days

Or combine this with what I suggested before so it would look like this

first time in last 30 days VM for 3 days
Second time in last 30 days VM for 6 days OR 3 days plus 5 rubies
Third time in last 30 days VM for 9 days OR 3 days plus 10 rubies

Remember I am not giving what my first choice is, I am only giving as many options as I can come up with that I feel would be better than what we have now.

No, V mode's rule now are good. The only problem is when someone see destroy moon mission coming and hit the button to avoid the fleet discover after the moon gone, thats the problem. And thats the only problem we must solve.
How ? We banned the player who do that and bring out the player from V mode so attack can go through. Or Make the V mode button not accesable while attack coming.

hmmmm the suggestion snave pointed out kinda gave me an idea. what are the scenarios where we have the issues with vmode exploitations.

Fleet returning from a planet to planet mission being caught in lanx or vulnerable to be lanxed. player hits v-mode.

I believe this is the only instance where the attacker have the upper hand and would say his gain was stolen due to exploitation.

now a player who just started the game having no moon if he is raiding from planet to planet is definitely lanxable. but then again the reasoning is while u are progressing on an attack mission it is ur responsibility to take care of it. thus the end of the day fleet save should involve a moon. that covers the beginner`s scenario.

now if a players moon is destroyed. and his fleet is shown in the lanx, cause it has to be a lanx hit to find the fleet, then the attacker has the following choices...

1) the fleet is crashable with his arsenal, so he times attack and hits the returning fleet.
2) the fleet is not profitable so he does nothing.

so you see until the attacker lanxes the defender there is no dispute or argument that attacker had a advantage over the defender. so why not the vmoding restriction be a feature that can be bought with rubies by an attacker. which is going to be per player costing some amount of rubies that will enforce the vmoding.

so the restriction can only be bought after the attacker has a lanx-lock on the player. if he do not lock it he cannot buy the restriction.

now many will argue that we do not pay for our accounts but i think this is a fair compromise. (even u take out the buying part i say lanx-locking should be the right thing to do) attackers actually can own the player to come up with defensive actions or do nothing. and the player in question can have the option of vmoding anytime unless he is locked in that case he is forced to play accordingly rather exploiting the feature.

Wow Spy. I really like your thinking here! I do not like the using of rubies to block someone, but if it works. Why not? Again, I am not a computer genious, so I don't know if it is even possible. But some additional restrictions would need to be put into place so that the attacker does not abuse this feature. What I am thinking is the block only lasts for 4 hours (just a suggestion, the time could be anything). And A person can only block a certain amount of people in a certain amount of time.

i would consider the block to be valid for the longest flight time available for ze, which is G1-G9 with RIP speed at 10% that would be equivalent to 116:24:40 just one way at hyperspace engine 7, the base requirement for RIPs.

i am pointing out that cause if u loose that window for 4 hours the player will hit vmode and fleeters will again complain. just thought that fact should be out of the way so that it do not get stired up again.

116½ hours is about 5 days.

SPY wrote:i would consider the block to be valid for the longest flight time available for ze, which is G1-G9 with RIP speed at 10% that would be equivalent to 116:24:40 just one way at hyperspace engine 7, the base requirement for RIPs.

i am pointing out that cause if u loose that window for 4 hours the player will hit vmode and fleeters will again complain. just thought that fact should be out of the way so that it do not get stired up again.

And what is it at 20%?

RIP (deathstar) speed from G1-g9 vice versa with hyperspace engine 7

10% 116:24:40
20% 58:12:21
30% 38:48:14
40% 29:6:11
50% 23:16:57
60% 19:24:8
70% 16:37:50
80% 14:33:6
90% 12:56:6
100% 11:38:29

so its 11:38:29 for minimum duration at a longest fleet

RIP (deathstar) speed from G1:1:1 moon-g1:1:1planet vice versa with hyperspace engine 7
100% 0:3:55

the above is the minimum possible duration with rips.

How about we give same as minimum stay in V mode (3 Days) ?