All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Ok so we have had different ETA for all ships classes (and now meta classes) from the time PA began.

But with multiple pod types, Fi/Co fleets seem to be the best on paper because of the speed factor (only 1 tick to get def and thats only FI/CO that can make that time), where as BS/CR, you usually have 2 ticks to gather defence (BS/CR/DE/FR).

I think this is problem for the BS/CR fleets, and does need a change.

I propose we unify all ETA's to the current FR/DE value. With all defence fleets getting -1 eta.

Here are the pros

1) Spreads out the problem of overkill in Fi/Co fleets.

2) Stat makers would be able to include BS/CR killing Fi/Co, and vice versa.

3) Those slow end ships that were only good for in gal defence are now usable out side gal.

4) Makes the Meta2 (Fr/De) class a more viable attack fleet, as they are required less for def needs, with most Meta2 target BS/CR (meta 3).

5) Expanding on #4, the Meta2 class (FR/DE), has a hard time as its targetted by the lower Meta1 and higher Meta3, which means its got a 2/3 chance of losing, so unifying the eta and including #2 reduces this effect.

6) Meta3 (Cr/Bs) are now able to have the same chance at landing as the Meta1 (basing on only 1 tick to get defence).

So what are the cons?

1) A tradition of smaller = faster is lost (not even affected by race storylines any more i.e xan = smaller ships).

2) Xans dominance on using Fi/Co to attack is reduced (this is both good and bad).

3) Attack fleets are now usable for defence.


Key:

Meta1 = Fi/Co
Meta2 = Fr/De
Meta3 = Cr/BS

vChange Tracker Thread : http://pirate.planetarion.com/vbugs....ug_statusid=12

But seeing as this one has been rejected within 5 hours, is there any need to discuss it?

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I think its more that new changes wont get accepted just because some random person suggests it.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I now made a seperate thread to discuss the issue of Change Tracker.

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=197901

So try to keep on track :P

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

As I said in PM (I didn't realise you had already made a topic), this sounds quite interesting.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Just the idea of a cruiser keeping pace with a fighter or corvette doesn't sit right with me. I can understand your logic, and desire to see the change but it just seems..wrong? New players would come in and see (in some circumstances with TT research) cruisers faster than fighters.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Then the idea of fighters going from one side of the universe to the other without refueling should also not sit right with you. Thing is, realism is ****ing overrated.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Nope..I'm fine with that

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

It's actually fairly reasonable to think all ships would have the same hyperspace speed capabilities imo.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I like the Idea from Ave about eta which he mentioned in my fleet diversity thread. He will have to correct me if I have misinterpreted.

fighters/co travel faster at smaller distances but slower or even unable to travel at long distances and so you would need something like a battleship to transport them effectively. This would effectively keep etas the same at long distances, say attacking other clusters, but maybe keep different etas within your home cluster

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Dude, that's just ****ed up.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

If you could argue the point that the fighters travel in the Cr's then are launched etc then it might be quite cool..so you'd have to have a certain amount of cruisers to transport your fighters etc.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

The idea isn't bad.
But how would it come? from res/con? that would make people rush for higher hulls before being able to attack.
or carriers will come directly with the hull? Meaning, fighter/corvette carriers come with Fighter Hulls?
And would we need to build carriers to support the Fighters? Like 1 carrier for each 10k fighters or 5k corvettes?
Would they die in battle?
Those would be things to work on, if we go in that direction.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

The idea for using either Large ships or a carrier type class is nice, but it actually makes smaller ships less attractive for the attackers, as you would have to build up to include extra ships in combat which may or may not be useful in combat (apart from the transporting thing).

My main idea for ETA was to make all classes as equal as possible.

Maybe in a different version of PA it would work well, but not in its current state.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Proposed stats for r32, CR/BS are very effective against FR/DE. FR/DE classes are very effective against FI/CO. I think the ETA advantage can be negated by a good set of stats, by making the hull class progressively more efficient/dominant. Something worth keeping in mind imo.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

That's how it was done in the past.
I have no issue about it being discussed.
It does mean that defence gets (even) harder. It has to link in well with stats. This eta difference also makes it a lot easier to have support planets, or if you only get the -1 defence for alliance/cluster, makes it impossible to get defence outside of that one tick.
Do we want that to happen, and to make it harder to defend through alliances?

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

It's interesting, not sure how it would effect the game, but worth a try i.m.o.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

The bigger ships could have the advantage that they can stay at a planet longer (say, 3 or 4 ticks) to defend whereas the fighters can only stay for 1 tick.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Well, if you think people should have 2 ticks to find defence.. couldnt you just change defence to be -2 eta :p

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Isn't that what happens with FI/CO incs? only 1 tick to get defense?
And don't we get along with that?

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Indeed thats why i suggested this in the first place, as to equal out the fleets.

Apoc: Look at it like this: R31 has been a Fi/CO round, due to the amount of those ships amungst the races. This I feel is down to the fact that 1 tick defence is the best option with the current stats. By giving all meta classes the same eta to land, then all options can be valid.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I like this idea, has to work well with stats though.
7 ticks attack for all fleetclasses / eta 6 def ally (so you get 2 ticks to defend which is better imo) / eta 5 galaxy def.

Would make the game a bit faster and create more ways to fake / send creative attacks not confined to a single class / eta

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I don't see it as a problem, so no reason to fiddle with it.

Being that this round's stats were utter shit, and everyone went fi/co, a thread like this was unavoidable.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I didnt suggest this just because of the current stats. It was something I have seen since the introduction of multiple pod classes (from round 6 onwards).

So you say the round stats were shit? How so? Was it the fact so many races had meta 1 class? or perhaps Cat being so powerful that they still have a major lead in the top 100?

If you have a large number of races with Meta1 (with current eta settings), your going to increase the chance that more people will go Meta1.

With current eta settings (as i stated in the OP) any larger meta class ships that fire on lower meta class will only be good for in gal/self defence.

I like the idea of eta 7 but i would like to stay my idea of 8, as it gives the galaxy a little bit more time to gather defence after a decent nights sleep.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

The (over)abundance of "Meta 1 class" ships coupled with Cath being "overpowered".

Obviously, which is another reason they were pretty poor overall.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Would this be a good time to repeat once more that majority EMP races should be removed?

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I would rather have uniqued etas than unified etas, just give each rate an efficient anti-fi def ship to build and we are sorted.

Uniqued etas gives each ship their own value as addon to their other stats. Gives more to consider and more choise.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Sure!

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

ETA's are good as they are. Sure most of the ships in the universe are Fi/Co but that's how it's supposed to be.

In every SF movie you watch you can see 1000 Fighters flying around 2-3 battle ships. It really makes no sense to have as many Fighers as Battleships.

Most people go for 2 different classes which is best.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Hmm, remind me what I said about realism earlier.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Your arguement has nothing to do with my suggestion, your talking about cost of unit to each other.

And yes peoplego for 2 classes which are Meta1 and Meta3, many never choose Meta2 because both Meta1 and Meta3 target them.

But I really hope that this idea is being thought about at PA HQ as I hope they dont just stick to tradition and not equal out the ships.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

So you propose we all go CR/BS?
I do support your idea though that stats have to balance things out and not the proposal that every ship will travel at the same speed.

This entire problem started when the 3rd ( and even 4th ) podclass was introduced. When these are removed ( in other words, we go back to 2 pods per race ), some races will not have FI/CO based attackfleets (as they do not have pods in this class, nor can they steal them). This in combination with a set of good stats will solve the problem you have.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I quite like this idea, afterall in practical terms a bigger ship has more space for larger engines/drives and would probably be able to keep up with smaller craft with smaller engines.
to control numbers of each ship type and stop everyone going BS/CR. why not link number of ships a planet can support to population level? i.e with a 100,000 population u could build 100,000 fi or 10,000 BS/CR as larger ships require more people to operate them.
/me prepares to be flamed

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

:devil:could idea pat make the pa team work harder:devil:

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

I can see your point with this change, something needs to be done to make the FI/CO swarms easier to stop. But I think that changing the ETA in the way you proposed it will make FI/CO fleets even more viable.

As in, take xan as it usually is, building FI/CO attack fleets and FR/DE as anti-CR/BS defense. If this change would be implemented wouldn't it be easier for xans to dominate because they have anti-everything in light ships?
Just think, xans wouldn't even need to research another Hull or build a single medium factory to have anti-CR/BS. In my opinion, this would hurt CR/BS planets even more, while only making attacks a little bit harder to land (keep in mind, xans fake) and render rushing CR/BS after protection almost useless.

To make it balanced, you'd only need to give one race a CR/BS ship to fire at FI/CO, just like cath had a few rounds ago. I'm sure anyone can find some of those in-gal. :)

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

Indeed but the problem your showing is the fact of the stats fitting the current mechanics of PA.

Just think of rock, paper, scissors. The stats try to do this but when you have rock travelling faster than scissors, then it becomes unbalanced.

You also have the effect that Paper is unfairly targetted by the other 2, while those two will only be targetted by 1 other meta class.

So as it stands going for FI/CO or CR/BS is a better chance of landing. But because FI/CO get a bonus to ETA, that in effect promotes them over BS/CR. But then the better players around will see the high percentage of FI/CO (which lack any anti-CR/BS) will utilise that hole.

If ETA were all equal, the stats would need to reflect the change, that means including CR/BS that shoot FI/CO, however they is no need to have all races include that said angle(remember you can have Fi/Co or Co/Fi or 1 of either), you need gaps for attacking.

In the original PA, all classes had different ETA's with BS taking the longest. Then came the time of the meta class (no idea when that came in TBH). So I see that PATeam are not adverse to changing the mechanics of flight.

Re: All for 1 and 1 for all (ETA)
 

That's just a matter of writing stats that don't suck. And, incidentially, keeping them for more than one round.