Сообщения пользователя: Magisteria
Сообщение #6
Цитата: WolfDad
I am not upgrading any of my planets until this happens. I have 6 planets at level 7, how many will I lose?
None. Colonisatioin Technology 7 allows 8 (1+7) planets and after the change your technology level will drop by one and you will be allowed 7 (1+6) planets so you'll still have 1 spare slot...or 2 if you have Premium
Сообщение #5
@UncleanOne
It doesn't say, but do I assume correctly there would also be +1 Asteroid and +10 Satellites for each 3 levels of Spire?
For xerj the technology will become unavailable, with 50% of its old cost compensated. Object limit will be determined by maximum level of Spire, each 3 levels giving +1 planet.
It doesn't say, but do I assume correctly there would also be +1 Asteroid and +10 Satellites for each 3 levels of Spire?
Сообщение #4
On my Xerj my highest Spire is 17, so +5 planets. So that takes my total planet capacity to 1+5 plus 1 for Premium = 7...and I have 10 planets with Colonisation 8. If I read this correctly I'll only be entitled to decolonise one planet and the other two I just have to abandon and lose all the resources of pretty well developed planets...this is defintely robbery! THINK AGAIN on XERJ!!!
Сообщение #3
Two related changes were made earlier today and a few minutes ago:
As a result of the earlier change fleet that I had "colo-saved" indefinitely suddenly appeared in High Orbit from all three of my race accounts.
For two accounts I had 10 of 10 Planets occupied and so colonising fleets were ejected due to "sufficient level of Colonization technology" (I presume) although there was no fleet change or time expiry.
For my third account I had Planets 8 of 9 so I don't believe the fleets should have been ejected at all.
With the subsequent change, presumably implemented hurriedly due to unforseen consequences, I don't believe any of my fleets should have been ejected.
Clearly the changes were poorly designed (and/or tested) and they were not communicated in advance of implementation so players had time to prepare.
Sadly, I am not at all surprised by this because this is the usual manner in which change is implemented by the "professional developers".
Please PM me for full details of accounts affected and fleet losses for recompense.
It was pointed out to me that I should have raised this as a Bug, so I did: https://xcraft.net/forum/topic_53611
I got a response quite quickly with the rider "Could be worse"...and it was immediately closed...this was the reply I wanted to make:
This doesn't address two points:
1) The original change was made without prior notification (and in fact notification was at LEAST 6 hours 42 minutes after the change was made as that was the first attack on my fleets) even though it would be obvious that it would have an immediate effect on many many players. The change was in fact "silent" as there were not even any game notifications that fleet had been ejected from colonisation. If I had been online at the time the first I would have known was incoming attacks, and as it happens I wasn't so all I saw was reports when I came online. This is both poor change control from developers and appalling customer service.
2) My Toss had a free colonisation slot (8 of 9 used) so the fleets shouldn't have been ejected anyway under either the original change or the subsequent correction
And "could be worse" sums up many things...including the professional standards of the developers...but sadly I've ceased to be surprised how many times that boundary is pushed
As a result of the earlier change fleet that I had "colo-saved" indefinitely suddenly appeared in High Orbit from all three of my race accounts.
For two accounts I had 10 of 10 Planets occupied and so colonising fleets were ejected due to "sufficient level of Colonization technology" (I presume) although there was no fleet change or time expiry.
For my third account I had Planets 8 of 9 so I don't believe the fleets should have been ejected at all.
With the subsequent change, presumably implemented hurriedly due to unforseen consequences, I don't believe any of my fleets should have been ejected.
Clearly the changes were poorly designed (and/or tested) and they were not communicated in advance of implementation so players had time to prepare.
Sadly, I am not at all surprised by this because this is the usual manner in which change is implemented by the "professional developers".
Please PM me for full details of accounts affected and fleet losses for recompense.
It was pointed out to me that I should have raised this as a Bug, so I did: https://xcraft.net/forum/topic_53611
I got a response quite quickly with the rider "Could be worse"...and it was immediately closed...this was the reply I wanted to make:
This doesn't address two points:
1) The original change was made without prior notification (and in fact notification was at LEAST 6 hours 42 minutes after the change was made as that was the first attack on my fleets) even though it would be obvious that it would have an immediate effect on many many players. The change was in fact "silent" as there were not even any game notifications that fleet had been ejected from colonisation. If I had been online at the time the first I would have known was incoming attacks, and as it happens I wasn't so all I saw was reports when I came online. This is both poor change control from developers and appalling customer service.
2) My Toss had a free colonisation slot (8 of 9 used) so the fleets shouldn't have been ejected anyway under either the original change or the subsequent correction
And "could be worse" sums up many things...including the professional standards of the developers...but sadly I've ceased to be surprised how many times that boundary is pushed
Тема: Documentation for Fog of War Implementation (Update/Change Visibility) |
14 Августа 2023 14:37:00
14 Августа 2023 14:37:00
Сообщение #2
So where do we find the documentation that covers the change "Fog of War Implementation (Update/Change Visibility Rules)"
This is a highly disruptive change that has not been pre-announced and I can find no documentation for and all the players I talk to don't understand
There's a separate discussion being had about whether the change should be reversed, but I am purely asking about given the change has been made where can we see details to understand expected behaviour
Or is this just a ploy to get HC for Bugs being raised only for the response to be "That's intended behaviour we just didn't tell you"?
This is a highly disruptive change that has not been pre-announced and I can find no documentation for and all the players I talk to don't understand
There's a separate discussion being had about whether the change should be reversed, but I am purely asking about given the change has been made where can we see details to understand expected behaviour
Or is this just a ploy to get HC for Bugs being raised only for the response to be "That's intended behaviour we just didn't tell you"?
Сообщение #1
I agree Ohnjay.
Suggestion 1: A "big" (high structure) OPS should be slower to move in free-flight than a "small" OPS so at least the "small" OPS has the opportunity to run away
Suggestion 2: Like a player gets "noob protection" maybe an OPS (or any satellite) should too...e.g. if the "big" structure is more than 10x the "small" structure it collides with the "small" one bounces away and is not destroyed...I am envisaging it getting pushed, say, 10 systems away in a random direction (more than a single teleport anyway)
Suggestion 1: A "big" (high structure) OPS should be slower to move in free-flight than a "small" OPS so at least the "small" OPS has the opportunity to run away
Suggestion 2: Like a player gets "noob protection" maybe an OPS (or any satellite) should too...e.g. if the "big" structure is more than 10x the "small" structure it collides with the "small" one bounces away and is not destroyed...I am envisaging it getting pushed, say, 10 systems away in a random direction (more than a single teleport anyway)