That's why it will be in the mission list. All the bi-weekly missions move to the mission list after the story is complete.

Why is it when someone see's a potential problem they can't bring it up in the forum and if they do , it's called whining ?

Why is there a suggestion area that I wrote this in ?
I'm pretty sure this is the only place to get ideas out so things can get better for the game.

Some things will get shot down in flames and others will get implemented to the better the game. Nothing would get done or changed for the better if people didn't come in here and say anything.
Why can't everyone come in here and say yes I like the idea because ...... or no I don't think it's a good idea because .... ?

Come in and write something if you have an idea or see a problem in your eyes.
I came in and told everyone why I thought it was a problem and some came in here and had serious attitudes for some reason and others came in here and were informative and acted mature.
It helped me understand the Sab class a lot more but I do see it as a potential problem. A person could make a legion and have 5 - 15 alternate accounts and make them all Sabs to take any planet easily.

I realize now that you Sabs have it hard now. I had no idea before but maybe some restrictions should be taken off of you and less people were able to be a Sab for the better of the game.
I mean anyone can be a victim to an army of alt Sabs ... it's definitely something to think about.

Hey bud, no i didnt finish the mission because i know how valuable flux probes can be. Dan also mentioned awhile back that weekly missions get entered into the regular mission area once the chain is complete so really there was no need to rush.

Yes, i did serve, 10 years and now i am a disabled vet, thanks for asking. By the way when we told your members that Roast was deployed one said he didnt care, it was a game and he would continue to attack him.

I think you are mistaking my words. I dont have an attitude (just in case i did i went to Walmart and the cashier said i was fine, j/k), just a very strong stance against your suggestion. I feel that if we, as a group dont speak up against an idea we do not like than perhaps it will get implemented. I try to the best of my ability to explain my side of an argument and am sorry if that came across an any other way.

I also did not think about the possibility of multi-accounts. You are definitely right about that. But there is really no defense against multi accounts regardless of race and we have to leave that up to the developers to keep track of.

Let me start by saying, I am a sab.i am the only sab in my legion(guns and roses).i only use my special ability in certain circumstances however.I seldome try to take planets from other players , and when i do attack a planet , i don't use my special ability to do so.The only time that i use my ability is to retake a planet that i previousely owned and it was taken from me....another time i use this ability is to help one of my fellow legion mates to retake a planet that was taken from them.Perhaps, instead of limiting the number of sabs in a legion, or anything too drastic, maybe we could be limited to retakeing a planet that was previousely owned by our legion or ourselves.....i chose the sab for that reason primarirly, and of course for the cloack bonus.

Whilst I agree that there is a potential for abuse, I would like to heartily object. In order to unlock the saboteur class once, a person must go through the entire Glaviz mission chain. That means that if they're creating an army of alts, they'd need to unlock it said amount of times to get said amount of Zolazin Saboteurs.

That's too much effort for one person alone. It requires time and patience like no other! I don't think most multi-accounters would multi-account for such a purpose when they can just use alts to scan better, unoccupied planets.

@ Jason
" Yes, i did serve, 10 years and now i am a disabled vet, thanks for asking. By the way when we told your members that Roast was deployed one said he didnt care, it was a game and he would continue to attack him "

Give me the name and or names of the guys that said they didn't care and continued to attack him.
I'll have a real good talk to him / them.

I did talk to Mitx about that personally and I got the word out to back off of him and told the guys as well.
Sounds like one or more either didn't know , didn't listen and didn't care.

The last two are unacceptable.

Interesting .. good point.

I think rather than that - perhaps saboteurs could just reduce the attack and defense of a planet by a set amount - but with multiple saboteurs the effect would stack. Just like positron clouds and quantum flares stack. That way with multiple players - the planet would be much easier to invade without destroying any buildings - and the attack/defense of a planet would never truely reach 0.



I have never supported Crimson Cluster Missiles and the sabotage effect. I think that this allows for sneak attacks that there is no defense for.


Edit: Another more simple idea would be to limit how many time a planet can be hit with the effect in a 24 hour period. Like a max of 3 uses against a planet before everyone has to wait. I'd also think if something like this is put into place it should be applied to Crimson Missiles - because I've had a player use 7 of them to take a planet of mine.

There is a defence for it. A large population and a lot of defense. We still need to get the pop under 100 before we can sabotage.

What you guys need to know on a real planet taking. We have on several occasions attempted to take planets where the Sabs removed all shields and mines, but due to the artifacts on them we all failed, from ranks 300-600. SO I do not see the point in further limiting an already limited race / profession. It takes a lot of coordination on our part just to get 4 sabs on at one time to even think about attacking. In a 24 hours period a Sab can ONLY attack 3 times IF it is every 8 hours on the dot and even then the person alerting the planet can only alert every 12 hours. So I do not agree with this idea you guys are proposing, because if it becomes any more limited, you might well just get rid of the profession. Why don't we just make all planets impenetrable then to stop this idea!

Population isn't protection; as I've said before, even at mid levels it is fairly easy to get Quantum Bio-Vaporizers, which kill half the population.

No planet was supposed to be uninvadable (with the exception of the mission Exotics and Dysons... and even then). If you want the best possible defence, I've just told you what to do. You can even add traps like alarm sentries and such which boost the planet's stats when it is attacked, which make it even harder to invade.

But, population and a GOOD defense is the best combination for stopping saboteurs. It won't stop them completely, but it is the best thing to do.

=
Like i siad, population strucutres are too humungous. Make them size 2 only.

That's stupid. That's like saying we'll put three hundred people, who originally fit in a medium sized hall, into the back seat of a volkswagon mini. I can understand cloaking structures, but not population structures.

Guys .......

Dan did reduce the space with defense and attack structures so he can lower the population too.
I'd also like to see the cloak structures reduced some as well.
The best population centers take up 6 spaces while the best cloak structures take up 7 spaces.

I put 2 of the best cloak structures and one of the second best. ( 20 spaces )
I put 3 - 5 Obviation shields. ( 6 spaces )
I put all of the artifacts that will fit to add defense ( invasion defense too ) , population , production and cloak.
Then last but not least I add a +12 production structure.
There is no room for me to put a population building or attack structure after I put all of that on and this is a very massive or a colossal planet.
Forget the average to large planets. There is no room for population on those for sure.

Realistically Satellites don't take up any space since they're in outer space in orbit so they should maybe take up 1 space just because we build it but the cost of the them and the minerals should be enough in my mind.
If that happened we could put some population buildings in.

So the spaces I use up for cloak are 20. If it was changed to 1 each satellite that would free up 17 spaces for me / all of us.
I'd feel a lot better about my planets then. It's nerve racking when we buy Quasi-Expanders and some Terra forming artifacts and have our best planets taken because we needed a little more space for population structures.

I'm rank 786 and I see planets from guys my rank and higher that don't put any defense or cloak on them but they have insane production but they are sitting on a house of cards ready to fall down doing that.
At least I try my best to defend my planets every way possible so sure it's more upsetting to me more than the arrogant guys out there that think their rank will stop everyone from taking them putting no defense hardly or cloak.

I'm not saying he can't, I'm saying he shouldn't. Reducing the size of a population structure would be like saying 'Hey, everyone in the Empire State Building should adequately be able to fit into a small sausage factory in Tanganyika'. If you're going to reduce the size, then you should also add a happiness bonus based upon how many people you've squashed into a small space and, if too many, it should work against you when that planet is being invaded.



The same could be said about all the minefields. They're in space, so they shouldn't take up any space. But then, that would be unbalancing. Im fine with cloaking modules being reduced in size, but not to a 1-sized structure. Not even to a 2-sized structure.

So, you're countering his first point about balance by saying it's not realistic, and countering his second point about realism by saying it's not balanced. I cannot believe I read this forum.

There's only so much space around a planet before it's unconventional to place more satellites, and that is based upon the gravitonic pull of a planet, which is why there is a limit to how many mines/cloaks you can have on a planet.

Also, his first point was both unbalanced and unrealistic, but I wanted to throw in the quote about Tanganyika.

Going by what he said, we might as well make planets uninvadable. Furthermore, who says that the

His first point wasn't necessarily unbalanced. The space can be lowered along with the population, so it can keep the same population/space ratio, you just don't need to take up as much space in order to take advantage of higher level tech. Almost no one uses regular population structures on planets that they aren't actively defending from an imminent attack, so the market's spoken.