Capping roids
 

What is up with capping roids? I capped 8M 11C 19E today and target had M102 C100 E100 roids before getting roided.

At this rate my roid ratio is gonna be way out of wack in no time, if it isn't already.



(surprised nobody posted about this yet?)

Re: Capping roids
 

this was a bug that got fixed this morning at some point, so as far as we know it should be fixed now.

Re: Capping roids
 

guess it's not fixed then

Re: Capping roids
 

when did you cap?

Re: Capping roids
 

tick 90

Re: Capping roids
 

when i said this morning, i really meant early afternoon.

Re: Capping roids
 

k np, let's see what happens tomorrow

Re: Capping roids
 

Signs of a good PA lifestyle.

Re: Capping roids
 

i actually liked it! it made me laugh a bit when someone capped only metal and eonium from my scannerplanet :p

Re: Capping roids
 

and how the hell could this bug pop up right in the blue? this should be one of the easiest thing to discover in the beta

nubs

Re: Capping roids
 

It was discovered in beta (again and again and again...), just not fixed.

Re: Capping roids
 

even more depressing then :/

Re: Capping roids
 

Hell, I thought thats how it was supposed to be ;)

Re: Capping roids
 

Oh dear god...
confidence will soon be suffering a negative integer overflow :/

Re: Capping roids
 

Ok, i'm looking at the r28 changelog trying to find a logical explaination ( after all, simple ratios arent exactly at a quantum physics level of difficulty ) and i cant see any tinkering with the combat engine mentioned so either this bug existed in r27 as well or its been introduced as part of 'a new feature' and simply not announced.
or of course simply introduced by accident - which is my bet.
Either way, if it was discovered again and again and again in the beta ( and presumably reported again and again and again ) it really is shocking that it wasn't fixed or announced if its intended

Re: Capping roids
 

From what I've been able to piece together (though I haven't spent much time digging around so I might be wrong), the combat engine was indeed tinkered with, in an attempt to fix a known bug with stealing. While I think the original bug has been fixed, two new ones were introduced in the process. A new bug with stealing (something about two stealing ships firing at each other at the same init, iirc), and the roid capping one.

Re: Capping roids
 

*sigh*
do i need to mention unit testing once again developers?
i've done it god knows how many times already :/

Re: Capping roids
 

Generally speaking, that's what devs always say when they screw up. :D

Re: Capping roids
 

The Charm of Planetarion, I believe it is called.

Re: Capping roids
 

Would be nice if the cap leaned toward race resource needs.

Being Zik, I wouldn't mind a larger E take on my attacks. As of now, equal roids mean M and C getting dumped in gal fund as donation...or losing 5% on trade for E.

Race specific caps would also lead to some interesting supply and demand.

Re: Capping roids
 

it would also get rid of their being any reward for actively planning during the round, to make sure you don't have shit res split.

Re: Capping roids
 

What are you talking about.

Re: Capping roids
 

If your any race but xan your going to need more of one resource, the more you 'plan' to negate the discrepancy between your resources then the more value you get out of your roids. If you don't build any refineries you have a larger inbalance for ship production, so you lose more resources on the gal/ally trading tax, if you don't have a mod and sufficient fund that you can trade with then your losing resources paying a much higher conversion cost trading with the universe.

Hence theirs a clear benefit to people that plan/organise these things over those that dont, making roid cap favour your races need for resources would make this 'skill' (as basic as it is) worthless.

Re: Capping roids
 

So you end up paying a 5% tax rate over the 5% of your income you'll end up trading (at the most!), that's a loss of 0.25% of your total income. That's 1 out of every 400 roids or a fourth of what your alliance asks for scans. Utterly insignificant.

Re: Capping roids
 

well, considering some ships require 25% more of one res your going to be trading more than 5% of total income in some circumstances. And the 5% gal trading tax is if you actually have a active mod and invest the initial resources, which would come under the 'planning' i mentioned. The default 25% is going to take a much larger percentage of your income.

As far as being an insignificant amount, people still make the effort to go etd before tick start to get that cheaper trade, so every little really does count :(

Re: Capping roids
 

On the contrary. Let us assume that you get income in a ratio of 1:1:1, just to keep things simple; no refineries, no bad roiding. On average (ignoring SKs and pods), there's a ratio of 1.18:1 between the highest and lowest resources. Taking taxes into account, this means that if you exchange 5.91% of your 2 lowest resources into the higher resource, you get the desired ratio. Obviously you only need to exchange 2 of the resources (into the third), so 5.91% of 2/3 of your income makes 3.94% of your total income. You lose 5% of that, which is a shocking 0.197% of your total income, or 1 in 507 roids.

No galfund at round start. 25%

Re: Capping roids
 

Tbh, why not just obliterate resource types? Have 'asteroids' and 'resources'.

M/C/E are looked at fondly by a lot of people, so instead you could keep the different types of roids, give each race abonus to mining (eg terran get 12% bonus to M, xan get 4% each to M/C/E...), but they're converted straight to 'resources'.

Wouldn't affect the gameplay and would remove 2 pointless columns on the stats tables; making them look less intimidating.

Re: Capping roids
 

or just remove all resource-types and just call it all "CASH"

.problem solved. or do we really need m/c/e now that the ships doesnt even need any fuel to fly?

Re: Capping roids
 

Personally, I am not particularly attached to resource types. As said above, it has little impact on ship production, and for everything else an equal cost in each resource type is used. Replacing the 3 resources with a single currency wouldn't harm the game while removing two useless variables from it.

Wrong, Bonuses of the type you suggest will dumb the game down, unlike simple removal. It would result in a notable decrease in interaction between different races (no point in roiding a race which mostly has roids you can't mine as effectively), creating boring "who has more war frigates" combat.

Re: Capping roids
 

The bonuses should be much lower but the concept is there to maintain the current 'dynamic' which already slightly favours roiding your own race.


I prefer the first option, but people whine whenever you try and change anything. The second may be more palatable (albeit with an order-of-magnitude-lower mining bonus or something).

Re: Capping roids
 

As said above, the impact is negligible. If you're suggesting setting the bonuses as low as that, I wouldn't bother implementing them at all.

Re: Capping roids
 

Me neither (like I said).

It was just a suggestion that others may be happier with.

EDIT: And whilst we're at it, condense guns/dmg so we can get rid of another column. The stats tables are pretty ugly right now.

Re: Capping roids
 

While this is true, your suggestion of bonuses is actually a bigger change than removing resources altogether. Yet people will support it. Pretty ironic, isn't it?