contact
February 19, 2019, 03:15:02 AM

Author Topic: About nuking other players  (Read 2526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Justin Coles 928543

  • Guest
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2011, 11:27:08 PM »
my suggestion is that nuking is part of the game, make a cap of how many you can send at a time, this would prevent alliances from grouping its members to simply fire 1 or 2 at a time.

I propose this:

for a level 4 silo, minimum cap of 10 nukes can be fired

silo 5 = 12
silo 6 = 15
silo 7 = 20
silo 8 = 25

etc etc

Having a cap would mean the defender COULD possibly keep rebuilding ABMs (if they are online)
This would also prevent excessive amounts of nukes being sent at only 1, 2 or 3 at a time to simply fill your screen, potentially causing a huge lag
I also would be +1 for nukes taking a fleet slot, even nukes need to have interstellar guidance ie needs to re-adjust direction to target etc etc, so i don't see a problem with the AI slot being used
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Biskirk

  • Member
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2011, 10:07:32 AM »
Quote from: "Justin Coles 928543"
my suggestion is that nuking is part of the game, make a cap of how many you can send at a time, this would prevent alliances from grouping its members to simply fire 1 or 2 at a time.

I propose this:

for a level 4 silo, minimum cap of 10 nukes can be fired

silo 5 = 12
silo 6 = 15
silo 7 = 20
silo 8 = 25

etc etc

Having a cap would mean the defender COULD possibly keep rebuilding ABMs (if they are online)
This would also prevent excessive amounts of nukes being sent at only 1, 2 or 3 at a time to simply fill your screen, potentially
causing a huge lag
I also would be +1 for nukes taking a fleet slot, even nukes need to have interstellar guidance ie needs to re-adjust direction to target etc etc, so i don't see a problem with the AI slot being used



I totally agree , PMSL   Only if you limit plasma cannons to one .

 Real world fellows joint nukeing , kill all the turtles.

BiSKirK

Hater of turtles
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

andy nard1

  • Guest
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2011, 11:38:49 AM »
Turtlles, this thread is to discuss when nuking is harassment, not ways to minimise the impact of nukes on your defenses, so kindly refrain to post ideas of limiting the nukes, limiting the numbers, grouping them...is off topic.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Justin Coles 928543

  • Guest
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2011, 11:52:03 AM »
Quote from: "andy nard1"
Turtlles, this thread is to discuss when nuking is harassment, not ways to minimise the impact of nukes on your defenses, so kindly refrain to post ideas of limiting the nukes, limiting the numbers, grouping them...is off topic.

Actually nard grouping them is NOT off topic!

OM asked for ways in which to help alleviate the principle of nuke strikes.

Are they harassment? NO
To some it is the only way of striking back. What should ONLY be considered harassment is when the person or persons firing the nukes decides to do so 1 or 2 at a time..

Now if i was to send 90  nukes at you every 5 minutes in 2 waves of 45 what does that do? nothing apart from slaughter ABMs and defences

Now, if i was to send 90 nukes at you every 5 minutes 1 at a time what does that do? Blocks of your fleet screen, causes lag and that to me is harassment.
Remember nuking is legal for ANY reason, and this is the grey area, until BFG opt to make a unanimous decision in regards to nukes, then we can all happily nuke for the intention of harassing or any other illegal function (just so long as you do not state such in a message), after all both OM and Jason have stated they cannot determine another players intentions...

So if you feel nuking is harassment, then the suggestion of only being able to fire a MINIMUM amount in any one volley would in my eyes  prevent harassment nuke attacks at only 1, 2 or 3 at a time
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Admiral Face

  • Member
  • Posts: 163
    • View Profile
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2011, 12:15:41 PM »
The real Question  is  why  are  we  even  discussing this BFG  has  made a decision  and  made into  policy period end  of  story. We may not  like  everything what  they  do  BUTT  we  are  not  the  policy  makers  of  this  game  what so  ever  So  it  is  there right  to  change things  not  ours  we  can  suggest  but  thats  all we can  do
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
THE KRAZY CANUCK





Offline Matt H

  • Blue Frog Gaming
  • Member
  • Posts: 4377
  • Community Manager
    • Facebook - matt.hirschfelt
    • LinkedIn - matthirschfelt
    • Skype - MattH_BFG
    • Twitter - MattHirschfelt
    • View Profile
    • Blue Frog Gaming
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2011, 01:12:44 PM »
Quote from: "Admiral Face"
The real Question  is  why  are  we  even  discussing this BFG  has  made a decision  and  made into  policy period end  of  story. We may not  like  everything what  they  do  BUTT  we  are  not  the  policy  makers  of  this  game  what so  ever  So  it  is  there right  to  change things  not  ours  we  can  suggest  but  thats  all we can  do

Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread. Try looking for the parts where I asked for input on how I can change or clarify this rule to the satisfaction of the community.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Connect with BFG:
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Official Website
  |
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
Connect with me:
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Skype

Offline Admiral Face

  • Member
  • Posts: 163
    • View Profile
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2011, 01:41:19 PM »
sorry  Matt   I  didnt  thanks  for  reminding  Me
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
THE KRAZY CANUCK





Offline Biskirk

  • Member
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2011, 04:20:12 PM »
Quote from: "andy nard1"
Turtlles, this thread is to discuss when nuking is harassment, not ways to minimise the impact of nukes on your defenses, so kindly refrain to post ideas of limiting the nukes, limiting the numbers, grouping them...is off topic.



Sorry , but when I here idea's that favour turtles, I get a bit fed up. If people want to farm go and play Farmville. Just my opinion.

BiSKirK

Its a war game, that is fun.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

andy nard1

  • Guest
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2011, 04:35:05 PM »
Quote
So if you feel nuking is harassment, then the suggestion of only being able to fire a MINIMUM amount in any one volley would in my eyes prevent harassment nuke attacks at only 1, 2 or 3 at a time

I do not think it is harassment firing even 1 nuke at time. Is annoying, but nothing ore than that, I can built AMB to counter that while I drink a beer.

Harassment is when a player just keep targeting another one without any reason...and sending nukes to cause damage when does not create any profit for the attacker (i.e. while the player is sleeping).

I think we should look first at the bigger picture and than go to the details, not doing the other way around
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Morat

  • Guest
Re: About nuking other players
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2011, 08:46:51 AM »
You know, I've followed this train since the beginning, and it's been an interesting ride seeing what constitutes harassment and what doesn't. But here's a thought...

We've got all these case-by-case examples of what's harassment and what isn't. Why not make it really simple for players, and make the criteria for *applying* those rulings that intent be reasonably proven?

I've stated elsewhere that I haven't changed my gameplay one iota regardless of these rulings. AFAIK I've never been accused let alone ticketed for harassment, and I doubt I ever will. Harassment is an *intention*, an ongoing series of acts,  not a single action, and while I've certainly done any number of single actions that apparently break the harassment rulings, my *intent* has never been to harass, and my history would show that.

I'm not belittling Andy's contribution to this discussion, it's been painstaking and invaluable, but it isn't possible to nail down every single situation that could be considered harassment. So, everyone, why not just take a reality check, come up for some fresh air, and ask BFG if *intent* has to be shown before the rulings apply, or are they *rules* that apply to *everyone* at *all* times? Intuitively obvious examples of harassment are probe bombing and nuke bombing to cause lag during an attack. It isn't logical that probe bombing is illegal and nuke bombing is OK, when the intent is the identical.

And note that I haven't said rules anywhere. These are a series of case-by-case rulings which players are now bandying about as though they're the word of Ghod.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

 

birthmark-ant