Hello, welcome to the Deep Silver FISHLABS forums!
Please carefully attend our rules and in all time-sensitive cases please contact our support. We hope you enjoy sharing your thoughts with other players.
Plankton

Plankton
Posts: 2
Unread post Ghosts issue by enonauta » 21. May 2016 10:14
Dear FishLabs

You should already know that GOFA rules permit to play in a peculiar mode known as “Ghost Mode”
In few words ghost create a solid safe protected home system , operate externally without any planet and it is helped by resources and troops by a secondary account or allied players.
Ghosts are ruining the game since some players discover this alternative (I could say unfair way) to play in the first server. Lot of players leaves this beautiful game because of them every day and for sure it is not a good thing for Fish Labs to lose customers.

My proposal.
An easy way to make their way to play useless could be this:
A planet can be conquered only after 12 hours (minimum 8) rounds. After 12 hours, as soon as the defender and its allies has no more ships, the planet will be conquered.
During the 12 hours players could defend or help attack.
In this way a player will have a chance to defend properly its planets and will increase the level of team play of this game providing more strategic battles. From a tactical point of view, this would push attackers and defenders to fast rebuild ships in the time frame of 12hours, thus leading to even substantial credit expenditure by players.

Please take in consideration this proposal or find a new one to eliminate/mitigate ghost play style

Best Regards
Enonauta
Plankton

Plankton
Posts: 2
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by Kwk » 24. May 2016 10:08
Bad idea.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=10739

[font=Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Sans, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][highlight=#032a4b]Most i have come across dislike ongoing battles "under Statement" it can be very aggravating fighting for 8 hours to smash a fleet down only to have the enemy continuously use credits to rebuild his fleet over and over.[/highlight][/font]
Game Master

Game Master
Posts: 312
Device / OS:
iPhone6s
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by G0rri1a » 5. June 2016 00:27
Yeah, Ghosts can be a pain in the ass. But it is also a good way to punish a big bully alliance. I myself took on the role of a ghost when a much bigger alliance took all my planets when I moved to a new server. I harassed them so much, they begged me to stop. It was like being a thron in their foot as they were busy dealing with other bigger alliances. I singled out certain players until the members put pressure on their leader to deal with me. I settled for an apology and some troops and went on my way.

There are many ways to deal with Ghosts, one of them is by working as a team and search the nebula for the Ghost's planets. Another is by making a solid cluster of planets and work together to defend them and wipe out any Ghost planets that pop up in the vicinity. Or sometimes a simple apology works too, usually these people don't hit you for no reason at all.

If anyone has other advice for working as or against Ghosts. Please share.
Tuna

Tuna
Posts: 125
Device / OS:
iPad 3 iOS 7
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by Scooter B » 2. August 2016 17:45
Not a fan of ghost play overall.

Depending on how, by whom and your perspective ghost strategy can offer some ability to level the playing field with bully alliances. Another valid use IMHO for ghost players is for alliances to have a sister ghost alliance division to fulfill the role of Black Ops or Marines within a larger fighting force of an alliance.


The negative effects on the game from ghost players as it is currently allowed to be employed ruin the game when their are entire alliances that play this method or single players. I would predict 99% of ghost players can only supply their fighting forces by using an alternate secondary account where that account is protected within a large alliance that is not frequently engaged in any competitive wars. The ghost player there for has an untouchable number of resource planets they can ship resources from free from any risk of attack. They also have no need to divide any resources on defense and can devote their entire fleets and troops on attacking without any real risk. They can even defend a few select citadels with carriers from the alternate account in an NAP'd alliance.

Secondly I know of no rewarding multiplayer war games based on real strategy that doesn't require the need to at least defend and maintain a certain amount of home territory to remain a fighting force within the game. I would not propose a direct ban on ghost tactics and not even sure how that could be enforced however it is well within the Devs control to rework the rewards system with minimum requirements for each player to maintain in order to earn rewards, resources and technology. Sharing resources within alliances for the better good as well as friendly alliances in a coalition is certainly a good feature of the game. Allowing ghost players to live almost exclusively off the resources of a protected alternate account circumvents fighting by the same rules and on a level field of engagement.

I would propose the Devs institute a reward/penalty system based on players holding a minimum number of well developed planets that would determine a formula for the number of carriers and total number of fighting ships that can be employed. Fall below that magic number and you start getting carriers "dry docked" or impounded. The formula could determine a certain number of "battle readiness" points based on; number of planets currently held multiplied by the HQ level of each planet multiplied by the number of days each planet has been held." With this kind of system the game rewards efforts to maintain territory over time and allows some level of ghosting at a trade off that minimizes the effect of players getting their resources from alternate player accounts not exposed to attacks from those they are at war with.

The negative effect of allowing ghosting as currently used to the game and players in the big picture however vastly overshadows the reasonable use of this tactic.
Plankton

Plankton
Posts: 2
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by Kurgan » 14. December 2016 18:34
This is a combat game. Most people leave out of boredom. Ghosting can be counterd. If anything more people should be useing the same tactics to add some excitiment back to the game. A pvp based sandbox game needs less restrictions becuase growth and game play changes comes from the players themselves. So improve yourself and stop complaining to game designers to get the game changed to fit your vision of what the game sgould be
Tuna

Tuna
Posts: 125
Device / OS:
iPad 3 iOS 7
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by Scooter B » 14. December 2016 22:57
I simply don't have the time to have and develop alternate accounts so while there is an open level playing field for all to adopt ghost players I don't believe the majority of players have the time to develop two accounts. Technically point taken tthat here is the option for all to adopt the same tactic. Practically if adopting that tactic is required to remain effectively competitive I would rather leave the game and imagine many others would also.

It is precisely the fact that this is a war game/combat game that on a logical level that I made the suggestions above as it would more closely mimic a RL scenario. You battle over territory and have to defend you production and resources while also attacking the enemy. If country A is at war with country B and country C is supplying direct military material support to country B it is pretty hard to hide and country C is going to start getting bombed by country A until they stop. Country C can't hide from counter strikes.

An alternative option would be for FL to provide the ability to acquire intelligence on all players and alliances supporting another alliance you are at war with. At that point a diplomatic warning could optionally be given or you just declare war on them and start hitting them.

I'm not trying to change the game to fit my vision of what it should be but rather making suggestions to make logical improvements to the game that more closely resemble the tactics of RL combat scenarios. Obviously in the shorter game FL makes more money by allowing alternates so money will triumph over logic. It could be argued that the game would benefit in the long term and keep players involved longer the more it becomes a game of tactics over a game of who has the most free time and $$ to run multiple accounts supporting ghost alliances.

These are admittedly just my humble opinions however I stand by the logical observations submitted.
Tuna

Tuna
Posts: 85
Device / OS:
None anymore
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by marckup » 15. December 2016 09:34
Just make it quicker to build planets. Take away limits. Then it is a matter of spreading your self too thin.
But I DO like the idea of a system hold bonus to defense. IF you own ALL planets in a system, you should get a benefit from it. After all, it makes you prominently show up on the map, while allowing you logically to hold the system most strategically.

Implement how? Say allowing a certain carrier complement to be stationed there, OR allow fighters to be stationed without a carrier.
The ship limit should apply to the size and count of carriers only to the extent that they are used in a mobile manner, i.e. deployed in a fleet.

Planets should be able to hold their own, static, force, with ability to traverse planets, but not systems. One other bonus potentially would be to allow pooling of planet fleets in a system wholly owned. Now there is an incentive to own them all.
Shrimp

Shrimp
Posts: 5
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by Mario PL » 19. December 2016 11:53
sorry for poor English.
For me it's simple. Each planet should have its fleet. The higher the level, the more fleet. A single planet to the max. level should withstand the attack 20k bombers. After each attack the reconstruction of the fleet should be done automatically provided that the materials on this planet.
And additionally planetary defense should also work automatically in the system planets. It is an attack he turns on a warning and a fleet of all the planets in the system protects attacked the planet.
Tuna

Tuna
Posts: 156
Device / OS:
Iphone 5 iOS 6, Ipad Air Ios 7
Unread post Re: Ghosts issue by Erwin » 4. January 2017 19:15
I have another suggestion:

How about a planetary Jumpgate.

The jumpgate makes it possible for you to transfer your fleet to another jumpgate.

That way you could move your fleet to defend in time.

Thats the basic idea, you could maybe also transfer allied fleet?

The jumpgate could need to be build as a structure (maybe limits on ships it could transfer or the distance on small lvl)

The Transfer could need ressources and/or creds (to make it cash friendly for FL).

What do you think about that?