It's either a pro or a con depending on your play style and where you are on the food chain.
Nothing can top that feeling after launching for a fleet after all that hunting. Reminiscing all that hard work, computation and guesswork... Yet still wondering if anything will go wrong...

Remember all that debate about the moon in slot 16?

SPY wrote:the farther breakdown of the fleet speed will give the following advantages.

> more air time for fleet saving.
> a much better adjustment to match rec fleet and attack fleet.

i am still debating if i want this or not. i will wait for more reasons.

I don't really have any other reasons other than the one I originally stated, After over a year without being vmode I have lost countless hours of sleep waiting for just the right time to FS, I have also missed out on other portions of my life because I couldn't find a suitable fleetsaving spot. I am just looking for a more realistic Zorg/Real life balance. This may also help to retain newer players who find this game to demanding on their real life obligations.

neoshagrath wrote:Pros:
You don't need to have strategic planet locations for safer FS.
Less fuel consumption.

Cons:
It might make some of the coolest tricks: Blind lanx and half blind lanx, obsolete.
Trying to track down which moons a player is using for FS becomes harder.

Easier fleetsaving and less fuel consumption may encourage more people to create fleets, making more potential targets for fleeters.

neoshagrath wrote: Remember all that debate about the moon in slot 16?

The main problem with the slot 16 moon was that it wasn't in play, it could not be destroyed at all. Making for 100% no risk fleetsaving. All fleets would remain in play, The difficulty of finding the moons people are fleetsaving to might actually remain neutral as it is in most peoples nature to save deut. Making the moons closest to them the best place to start looking.

These are just random thoughts, mainly speculating. I still believe that in order for this game to appeal to more people it needs to be more of a game, and less of a lifestyle. That is just my opinion though.

I still believe that in order for this game to appeal to more people it needs to be more of a game, and less of a lifestyle.

totally agree with the sentiment

Then can we add the info on what speed the ships were sent on fleet overview and lanx report?

neoshagrath wrote:Then can we add the info on what speed the ships were sent on fleet overview and lanx report?

Please elaborate, as I don't think I completely understand the question. You have to remember I drink a lot.

how do you plan to do a blind lanx attack with the speed stepper is readjusted to 1-10% intervals?

i don't understand your problem spy ... blind lanx's are part guess work anyway... what real difference does it make what values become available in the speed control... its still down to your skill and understanding of the opponents strategies surely... if you need more control of your own attack speed ... then that would encourage co-operation in attacks and more acs usage which would surely benefit zorg in the long run as well...

what am i missing?

Blind lanx is part guess work. But 10 20 30 40... is almost entirely different from 1 2 3 4 5...
I believe the OP's sugesstion is just 1 to 10 increments not 23 76 83... Right?

1-10% will make the guessing work near to impossible. that is what i am getting at.

for each 1% increase the interval will have a granularity by seconds. while with 10% steps u could differentiate by a larger degree of accuracy on your guessing.

to start with the blind lanx is already a hard thing to do. anyway i will give this one tho. instead of 1-10% i can work with just another step of 1% that is u can have

0%
1%
10%
20%
....
100%

i believe the OP was saying he'd accept an ability to have 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,40,... if fully control was not possible..

i still don't see what the problem with fine tuning is... in fact the position for "blind" lanx's is probably improved as you are more likely to get people clustering there "return" times around "predictable" time slots, with improved control... anyway don't you face this problem presently with any serious attempts to frustrate a "lanx" attack utilising an ACS "fractional" attack which wont be a standard 10% increment....?