we want your opinions PT I

Im sorry blazed while you make good agruements for virals the amount of times you vacationed to get away from counters is pathetic

losing borders for VMing shouldn`t be allowed. What are Viral tax empires supposed to do when food is sky high like it`s been? They can`t make money so most will VM for a few days or a week in hopes that food will come down and if it doesn`t they VM again. So they are being punished for something that is not in their control. There`s also various other reasons empires need to RE-VM...called into work for your days off..RE-VM, new house is so new internet isn`t availible for hook up for a week..RE-VM...wiring wasn`t completed right, need a few more days..RE-VM. I love GC but for the 1st half of the year I don`t have much time to play...a day here or there so I`ll base a vm length on when I think I`ll be able and willing to play, lots of times it doesn`t work out or food is crazy high...gottta RE-VM. If anyone here works 240-300 hour months I`m sure you understand.
VMing with a fleet...well again, some empires just don`t have time to play everyday especially for hours at a time every day. It takes an extremely long time to build an actual fleet into the high PR`s without spamming capitals. It`s also lame that someone can stay protected with a massive fleet until their allies can climb to help fight so I`d think it`d be fair to lose a certain % for every day you vm for...lets say 5% for every day you are in vm for a max of 75%.
Counters against you should be put on hold if you VM.
Top 5 bonus should be eliminated but since it`s not VMing in top 5 should not take up a 2xing spot.
Slaves should be able to free themselves from a VMer no matter the PR difference or a VMer should automaticly lose all slaves when VMing.
Need longer VM days available and be able to freeze account without PMing a admin.
No need to stop empires from Chain VMing for the same reasons in my opening statement.

here are ma 2 cents on VMing.. im here for an long time and know how peeps abuse VM.
On RT server extend the 24h period of non attackin any 1 else to 48h.
Ive seen it many times empires hit everything on sight climb sky high to get out of the 24h period and then VM 7 days
Sec when ya VM then ya lose 3 borders. Period. Vms for 3 days or longer makes sure ya cant get countered so its only fair to lose at least 3 borders each VM.
3th VM puts ya automaticly in NP so ya gone outta top 5. Seen many peeps built up then VM and are happy to seetheir name in top 5 when they log in and are suposed to have no time to log. What happens to the fleet when he returns is up to you guys

I agree completely, but increase the max VM days. and I think VMing should destroy 75% of your fleet.

I feel VM should reduce all ships to 1 count. Just a thought.

americanministry, good idea, you get your VM, after someone has put you into DP (unless you are already in DP of course)

No the attack should go. U need to be able to activate vm whenever u need to but you shouldn`t go into dp for 24 hours. It means nobody can vm after attacking but allows people with emergencies to vm whenever needed.

No I think the 24 hour attack rule should stay, it would just invite abuse otherwise.

Sometimes you don`t have time to freeze you empire and just have 5 seconds to log in and VM.

Is not having attacked someone for over a day still going to be a requirment for VM, should that be changed if we are removing fleet and slave empires from a VMer?

lol that`s not true bw I asked for days to be frozen with no response and lost a killer empire, need an automated way.

where`s the question?

Simple question: Returning player after 10 years away -The dig time changes are great...but everything else, it just seems like you`re making this game much harder to just play and have fun. I don`t want a W.O.W. life-style game here.

BW, I sent a PM to both you and EE before I left, but it had been 3-4 days since either of you had logged on. I had 3-4 days worth of borders (15 colonies), but wasn`t able to VM because my schedule got bumped up on short notice. Came back from the desert a month later and it was all gone. It was kind of a crabpy situation (I had like 16 hours notice that I got bumped up a couple days, and was unable to VM because of a recent attack), and I don`t blame anyone for it. But at the same time I`m sure that for as long as I`m in I`ll continue to come across similar situations and would hate for VM to be made more difficult to turn on unless it`s being very seriously abused.

I think 10x is fair, no lower than 5x mainly because of tax empires would be affected more from a VM exit versus others due to their larger base pr. Especially if they are hoarding planets.

Honestly, I see more enslave/vm abuse than cluster vm abuse these days on turn based servers.

I agree with Tranq on this and was a main reason why I blew up my viral empire was because I was historiad during my 7th day of VM for 2 years almost. At some point, artifacts will outweigh the benefits of a vm build which I am not sure is a good or bad thing.

That`s why we do extended vm Ender, you can always get the option to protect your account at 1.5k pr for as long as you need. Regarding vm in general i was already planning upon adding a longer term option, for anyone who requires it anyhow.

Honestly TanquilSuns right now? No one, but in the past it has been repeatedly abused to a extreme degree on turnbased. Specifically for the purpose of protecting one`s own clusters, if you have valid reasons for vming that`s all fine and well, but at the point you`re just vming to protect your clusters not because you aren`t able to be on that is in itself a problem. I tend to prefer to find a balance for what i know has happened, and can happen. I am fully aware that vming exists for valid use, and is often validly used. If people are strongly opposed to the idea of it then that`s fine for me.

But the issue you mentioned with hists, that`s just an issue with hists/artifacts themselves. To be honest things like that can be addressed on their own as a whole later, and it more than likely will.

Nothing is just brought up on a whim, if it`s mentioned it`s because simply put it has happened to a degree that`s proven troublesome; Either right now or in the past, and if it`s happened before it can do so in the future. So i`m just going to sum up the thoughts of things now, as i see them and what`s taken off the table now.

First thing I said is obviously still on the table as i`ve not seen much against it, if anyone has any thoughts on it or problems with it by all means do speak up, or if you think the values should be different (10x base pr being too high/low? or anything really). Anything regarding chain vming is off the table, so don`t worry about it; I was only seeking to provide my reasoning for it being on the table prior in what i said above.

So i guess the only other thing has been the removing of slave empires from people who vm, honestly that`s not what i was going to do.. But it`s also a lot easier to do that, and I see no issue with doing it like that. So if no one has any objections that`ll be how that aspect goes down. People in vm who happen to be in the top 5 will be excluded from the top 5, but I`ll make it clear that they are excluded somehow. And how that will work is simply if they are in vm, not if they are in dp. So the top 5 will function exactly like it does now aside from people in vm.

Edited by BadWolf on 2016-04-05

EnderWiggin, so it sounds like an increase in the max VM number of days would be a good idea. I can`t see any reason why this shouldn`t be done.

BadWolf you ideas look good, as long as the max VM days goes up.

Speaking as someone in the military who routinely gets pulled away on very little notice, and can spend as long as 30+ days with zero internet connection (or cell phone) I`ve already lost all my clusters once this year because the max VM time is only 20 days. Should I have the good fortune to snag a few minutes of internet at the end of a VM I would hate to then not be able to reenter VM before being pulled away again. I have no real opinion on VMing in the top 5 because it rarely affects me, but please don`t make there be a cooldown for chain VMing.

Who is it honestly hurting to chain vm? Why are we even discussing turn penalties? If someone is taking 7 days vm and using some turns and then vming again, how is that really punishable? They are already punishing their income in a sense as the people who are not in vm have a six day window to make money. Who cares? There`s staff that`s been in vm for ages even...

What`s going to happen on normal when Vacation Vic eats a dozen historias at the end of a vacation? He`s just doomed to take a hit and lose his clusters because someone took advantage of a situation?

I`ve taken a bit to review what you`ve all been saying, i see some good ideas all around. Along with some i can toss together.

So here`s my reworked solutions:-

1. You can vm within 10x your base pr with zero fleet loss, meaning if you have a base pr of 200,000 you can vm upto 2,000,000 without losing any fleet; If you are beyond this zone you get a warning informing you that you will lose 75% of your fleet when vming, unless you drop to (insert 10x base pr here). At that point you can choose to listen to the warning and drop, or vm anyway with the 75% loss.

2. Chain vming I agree that it`s generally not an issue, but in some cases it is honestly abused. So a solution i thought on was this:- If you vm for a 7-20 days then when your vm ends you get that 24 hours of turns, but if you vm again within 48-72 hours of your previous vm, when your vm ends you don`t get turns until your dp actually expires. - Please note that you can still vm again inside dp after your vm ends, with or without turns.. So this would only affect people who were specifically looking to use the dp from VM to use turns, followed by vming again.

Yeah, no need to punish someone cause they have busy week at work, traveling, having a baby, etc...

Either take fleet at beginning of vm, or take dp at end, but coming out of dp fleetless and turnless is too much.