951

(2 replies, posted in Bugs)

He said delete on him tongue ..not sent.  So more plausible.

The other day, my daughter deleted a photo off my mobile phone sad ...lost forever!

Nah, this was also pointed out before.  It needs to be addressed.

I wasn't here when the ops and stuff was added to Fam News, so havn't looked at it all.  But yea, it should say who the target was.  And also, I think there was at least 1 op which doesn't show up in Fam News at all, where it should.

/me racks brain

953

(14 replies, posted in Bugs)

I think it's bugged.  Pmode has been flagged before.

Tbh, I think both vmode and pmode have had soemthing screw up with them.  Pmode at least used to work better than it does now (even though it was still never properly working).

I'll have a chat to Pie.  Pmode and Vmode both, I believe, need to move to Urgent status -_-

954

(49 replies, posted in Ideas)

Another one bites the dust!

http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=183298

955

(1 replies, posted in Announcements)

As Rulers of our Great Empires, there is often a need to cut away apart of what we own quickly.  Whether it is parting with planets to your own Family members for more efficiency, or for the sake of giving up a bit of territory to those enemies we so despise.

For this reason, you can now easily abandon these planets and 'Clear Defences' on them!  This can be accessed through your Planets Page.

The "Clear Defences" button, on selected planets, will:
- Demolish all Lasers
- Raze the Portal (even if building)
- Recall Stationed Fleet

Enjoy! smile

Sounds like something colo would do, really.

Spyro, why was the PNAP not signed ingame?

Could have signed pnap asap and then used DPA to pay the 40 planets?

957

(211 replies, posted in General)

Voting SSL!

dsup, you and I have both had awesome share wars during the round.  Just cos it's a war at EOR doesn't mean it's necessarily more fun than a war with shares during the round.

Infact, we used to pick our share war targets, based on how it would get us more and more shares with someone else.

959

(4 replies, posted in Bugs)

smile

I didn't say to ban it.  I said just not make it part of the game.  Like why make such agreements, when there's always cases of people not abiding by them?

Although I agree with you about the dates thing, I don't believe we can code in everything to prevent 'dishonourable' actions.

I mean, what about fams cancelling on another fam who has just come out of war?  How about a grace period of 48hrs on top of the cancellation??

Players will always find ways to circumvent certain things.

That could be on way.

The other is to just not let NAPS have date agreements?

I mean, why do we want to condone the people who are wanting "EOR wars"?  Why do we let fams "line up" their wars?  Imo, keep it to the ingame system as is, which allows any cancellation.  That's the dynamic we want.  We WANT people to be cancelling on each other during the round.

If you make agreements beyond that, you're welcome to - but you do it at your own risk.

962

(6 replies, posted in Bugs)

It seems to be the case, havn't looked at the code yet or anything but just based on what people are saying.

Initiatlly, (or i should say recently) it was reported to be this case but only for intra fam, so it wasn't such a high priority.  Now though, this is a big issue so will be looked at.

I think we'd even consider removing Vmode for the time being.  Lets face it, it's not really being used for what it's meant to be.  Eitherway, it needs to be fixed and implemented properly, I think.

963

(108 replies, posted in Universal News)

lol

964

(49 replies, posted in Feedback)

I love how people whine about things and want to contribute 'only' when it affects them smile

This has been discussed plenty of times, and more recently here:
http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=177815

But due to lack of people's feedback on Ideas on how to make it better, nothing was done.

I like pie wrote:

"we want to make them log in every day, but not just to build explo ships"

Exactly.  This is a mindless task,

I disagree, with what you refer to here.  And this is what I was referring to about where do you draw the line?  Why is building explo ships a mindless task?  Yes, it requires no thought (most of the time), but it's a necessary component of playing.

Also, why have a cap at 3 days then?  If you firmly believe this, then why have a cap at all?  I should be able to create my empire, then not login for 4 weeks, and be able to build 224 explos in one go.  Why punish me for not logging in for 4 weeks?

I mean, you could say building infra is a mindless task too.  Why not have an option in my HQ that i can turn on, that every tick I make gc, if I have enough resources, I autobuild cash factories?  Cos building Cash Factories on planets is also kinda mindless.  That way I can log in once a week, and during this time, I've auto build CFs all this time.

I like pie wrote:

That's very true.  However, the opposite is just as true.  If you only keep the current players happy you won't attract new players.

Also, I don't agree with the above.  They don't have to be mutually exclusive.  Yes, it's difficult but it's our job to find a midpoint where we satisfy new and old players both.  Hell of a lot easier to retain old players/customers and look after them, than it is to gain new ones.  I say this cos of my Sales and Business experience -_-

966

(338 replies, posted in Universal News)

Stan wrote:

bah. This round is just going to die out again. Thanks to you guys:P

lol, nice of you to give someone else the responsibility this round tongue

967

(338 replies, posted in Universal News)

Anyway, just thought I'd share some logs of a convo I had with Lee before I left.

10:49:57: <Torqez> Yea
10:49:59: <Torqez> thats why
10:50:01: <Torqez> the longer we wait
10:50:03: <Lee> 72 1 aswell
10:50:05: <Torqez> the worse it is for us
10:50:09: <Torqez> cos we have 3 non-infra players
10:51:01: <Lee> ye
10:51:06: <Torqez> thats also why i think an eor war with 80/70 is stupid tongue
10:51:09: <Torqez> they'll eventually catch up
10:51:21: <Lee> i wanted to cancel like today...
10:51:30: <Lee> but allies are so far behind its a joke

----

10:55:02: <Lee> Week 46, 7Send Another MessageSave
10:55:02: <Lee> 48h alliance Core Nap between 7878/7884 & 7880/7870
10:55:02: <Lee> - it will be a EOR war with the dates of cancellation settled when WS gets on
10:55:08: <Lee> u know we never did arrange a date
10:55:14: <Lee> we can use thast to our advantage tbh
10:55:37: <Lee> im just guna say anytime during the last 14 days nap can be cancelled
10:55:40: Torqez shrugs

968

(338 replies, posted in Universal News)

Chomp_On_This wrote:

Yea cause wars that last 3 weeks are tons of fun right? Please don't tell me how to play this game, I don't try and tell you how to play.

..

Chomp_On_This wrote:

Most wars these days are decided in the first few tics, rarely do they go more than a day.

-_-

969

(338 replies, posted in Universal News)

Not saying what you did is wrong.  But I was just disagreeing with the fact that a war at this stage of the round, can't be as fun.

970

(338 replies, posted in Universal News)

I have to agree.  It was never done this way before either.

Chomp_On_This wrote:

It's a guarantee to have actual fun cancel wars, not shitty lame little skirmishes.

Shares exist already.  You just have different sized fleets.  Warring at this time of the round, gives you the opportunity to keep warring throughout the round.  You don't need to plan 2 months of skirmishes and infra, just to have 1-2 big wars at the end.

Yep, we can't be making it so that activity doesn't play a factor at all.

I mean, hey, why don't we make it you just login once at round start, and just queue up all actions.  That way you can log back in 4 weeks later, and your empire is still fine.

Yes, an exagerration, but the point is we want to be making people more active (through some other ideas).  I'm of the camp that, we want to make them log in every day, but not just to build explo ships.  Let them do more to grow their empire through meaningful activity.

Also +1 @ IMLC for using cookie examples!!

972

(338 replies, posted in Universal News)

Can, I just say to all of you "I told you so"

=]

/gloat

973

(338 replies, posted in Universal News)

[PW2] PICKLE ARMY wrote:

If I were in 78 and 84 I would not participate in this bullshit.

r0ar

974

(6 replies, posted in General)

I'm all for adding new roles.

But in the game of Mafia, you introduce them gradually.  You can't easily add in a million new roles who all do different things.  It's too confusing, and people as it is struggle to gain knowledge of proceedings.  Not to mention balance is always what moderators think of before designing a game.  You don't want it heavily favoured one way or the other.  Rather you want the players to be able to make smart decisions and deductions to gain their advantage. 

Too many confusing roles loses this focus.

975

(33 replies, posted in Universal News)

This Failcup has Failed to take off.