Balanced vs random stats
 

I'm a guy that likes balanced sets and hates random sets. But in the past we played alot of random sets and the game didn't die off.

So i'm wondering what people's opinion on this topic is. Should we rotate more between balanced and random? Or should we stick balance or random?


PS: Radom is a nice word for unbalanced/hectic set/uber fleets & crap fleets/...
PS balanced is a nice word for sets too similar, no variations, ...

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I do like exciting stats and first cut kill attack fleets

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

We don't we have neither?

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I think this is an interesting discussion. It holds many points of intrigue.


Firstly we need to understand what random vs balanced means. In this debate it is wether a race is OP in its targeting in one area (say fi) and weaker in another (say de). When jintao does his matrix he is aiming for equality across the board. For example every race and every class can roid 3 of the 5 races available, giving him a perfectly balanced targeting matrix. This then allows less worry about things such as ac/dc and emp res.

Personally I think 'random' stats are more fun as it puts more emphasis on alliances to find the best set ups. To integrate the OP ships or work to counteract them as a team. In balanced stats this becomes more irrelevant as everything has equal chance of succeeding and takes a lot of the 'fun' away from the initial choices.

I made a point to him that rounds that have OP/ridiculous ships are more memorable rounds compared to more recent rounds where balance has been put at the forefront of design. I find that the last 10 odd rounds have blended into each other from a stats point of view because of this and it's harder to pick out things from those rounds that stood out to the player's. Even though we have had big changes to the stats, including a cloak free round.

I would like the emphasis shifted to creating stats that stand out and cause talking points/issues as these give more points of interest over the course of a round.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

We learn nothing new from playing "balanced" sets.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

If going for random sets means we can scrap that ridicolous "soloing matrix" or Tia's "x FI, x CO, x FR" idea then im all for it.
Matter a fact ive been crying out for this for years.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

The soloing matrix is 100% needed. You need to be able to see how ships interact. It's manipulating the stats to create a perfectly symmetrical outcome that is what Jintao is asking about.

As munkee said you don't learn anything or grow as a player from 100% balanced stats. You are basically playing in a bubble where 'thinking outside the box' isn't required.

Having to organise and build counter measures to OP ships and devising ship build quotas to deal with varying attack fleets is where players learn most how stats work and are able to get a better understanding of what they are doing.

Can you elaborate what Tias idea is, I don't recall it currently.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Have we ever had 100% balanced stats? Most dont seem to be close once we get into actually playing. I personally think most of the recent stats have been pretty terrible, perhaps as a consequence of this impossible pursuit.

Balance in the game is not about what they look like in a matrix as that will always exclude loads of factors; alliance decisions, that some ppl stick to certain races, and I doubt they take into account the other race bonuses on research etc well. This round we have 30 cats and 15 xans in the T100; did the addition of population research have anything to do with this? Probably. How much? Who knows, can it be quantified?

Balanced stats is a snare and an illusion.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

And therefore we should just faff about and do whatever and this will improve everything.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Call me crazy... how about a blind round? Only declare Ship name, Ship class, Ship target and Damage type... no init, guns, armour, damage.... emp res...

Hell, even turn off bcalc too... its no fun knowing you win the battle 4 hours before it happens

100% random galaxy too... damn i could really shake this game up loools

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Stats dont need to be "unbalanced". To make things interesting, you only need to give each RACE a fleet option that is hard to cover. Im tired of seeing soo much covered only by Emp fleets. Its too soft. If all races have an attack option that gets your mouth watering, youll have an even spread in the universe and, above all... a fun round.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I think a 100% random galaxy would be interesting to see how it changes the way people play and keep things fresh, but you'd need to have larger galaxies then to balance out the lack of organization derived from a BP.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I agree to a point, but the problem is that EMP simply doesn't work unless it's "too good".

That being said, emp is pretty lol this round (again).

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I'd say the problem with EMP is that the more value you have, the better it becomes. A Cat top planet is really hard to land (because defense helps them so much more), whereas a top 300 Cat planet basically might as well not have a fleet.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Well yes, exactly. One good crash and you're basically finished....if you're going for planet rank.

A top 300 cat planet with a crap fleet can still solo cover vs Fi especially, and Co to an extent....if not both, and still have Vipers (or whatever Co vs Fr ship type) to have an impact on a further third fleet.

All the while spamming amps and scanning for their ally since early on.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Well ive arguments has been if you want to solo, then go cath.
"But what if i want to solo and dont want to go cath" cries has been heard all over this forum section/and in the stats channels on IRC.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Really? Point me to a few, please.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Its the reason behind the "infamous" jintao matrix.
Like it has any major influence on how a stats play out how many races you can solo with race A and roidfleet X?

Having proposed a few stats, having them all being scrapped, most of the time the reason has been that certain fleets is weaker than other.

If you want to solo, go for a race that (usualy) allows it because it prefires everything else, cathaar, and dont go for a stealing race, zik, thats usualy fireing/stealing after everything else.

If the biggest goal of any set being accepted is "balance", why not just go for a 1 race set, nobody can complain about unbalance between the races then.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Would it be possible to have ships that mostly emp but also kill a little (perhaps a percentage of frozen ships crews fail to repair their ships and get them working again and instead they get destroyed after the battle)? This would allow emp to not be much higher in effectiveness if at all than other types instead the benefit would be firing first. It would also mitigate the problem with attacking a cat being seen as a free land. Something similar must surely have been suggested, probably many times! In the short term it would probably unbalance things due to it being new but once we get used to it it should make balancing easier.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Point me to a few, please!


I'm not sure it would improve things, but I also don't see how it could make things worse. Worth a shot, I guess!

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Like... EMP have 100% EMP type ships... BUT... maybe the first 10% of ships hit by all EMP during combat are killed, remaining 90% are EMP'd. Would alittle fear to the 'free land' of an cath target with no def

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

When I go solo/random I always go Xan. That's a no brainer really.

(Also, what mz said).

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I've only been back playing for 6-7 rounds now after a lengthy period away from the game but by far the best set of stats in that time frame was the round without xan. That's not because the stats didn't include xan but because we had 12 different pods. It provided a variety of strategy options for an individual or alliance.

Whilst I understand you wouldn't really want to give xan 3 pods, but why can't we have a set that gives certain races more pods?

Maybe zik and etd/ter have 3 pods each with the others having 2 to equal 12 or maybe just add a sixth race. You could also then offset this with changes to res/cons for each race (i don't think we do this enough in general anyways).

I wouldn't really care how it's done but increasing pods numbers means more options/changes/strategy round to round and then we dont have a stale set of stats before the round has even begun because they have just ended up resembling the last set of stats we had.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Have to agree. As much as I love Xan and it suits my alliance, the round without Xan was far more enjoyable. It pushed people to think outside of launch pods and sleep. p3ng for like the first time ever went heavy ships and we adapted well to that play style. We would never have considered them if there was an xan alternative.

I also have to agree on the pods front. I did once upon a time hate the idea of all races having all pods, but couple that with xan being nerfed/removed it makes for some great stats. I think giving some 3 pods and some 2 pods might work nicely. Could consider dropping xans down to 1 pod and keeping their cloak?

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

The stats I have offered up for rd73 (I'm finishing emp eff after work today jintao!) Have 2 pods with a steal option for a 3rd set. I think this is good compromise on the 2 or 3 pod option.

Taking Xan down to 1 pod is pointless. You will always know what is coming. Xans power lies in the fact you don't know exactly what it is.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I also like the idea of varying the number of pods between races, because it allows for every class to be the basis of a viable alliance ship strategy.

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

Any chance these proposed stats can be viewed?

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I agree xan needs 2 podclasses, deffo not a third though.

For the other races i dont mind them having more podclasses

Stats last round were good balancrd, but a Bit Boring, as there were Too few faking Options imo

Have to be careful With the targeting though, would Stick to Classes firing on max 3 other Classes - else things get Too defensive fast

My 2 cents

Re: Balanced vs random stats
 

I think I've played Cath most of my rounds. Probally because I like the color blue or whatever. But I hate those 'free lands'. Basically; if there is no def, just land it because you'll lose nothing and you might still steal roids or cap full.

I don't have a sollution though, maybe it's just part of it. However I like the idear of a small % that kills. Ever been tested?