Round 32 Changes
 

Two of the main changes:

Asteroid capture rate*
Maximum percentage to capture: min(30,25*(target_value/your_value))
(i.e. max cap is 30)

These values are based on last tick's value (i.e. the one before the one in which combat takes place)

Mouseovers have been introduced initially on the galaxy page to predict the cap rate (in terms of % and in terms of the number of roids) that you'd get from the planet.

*I'll go into more detail soon for bcalc makers on how this works on multi attacker setups, but it's fairly straight forward



Production

Ships in production contribute the following value:

ship_cost/150 + (ship_cost/300*(% of that ship type of that order complete))

Intuitively, think of it as "ship orders start off as counting towards value the same as resources, and they increase until they end up counting the same as complete ships".


Example
If I order 1000 fighters at 10 of each resource, they'll give (10+10+10)/150*1000 = 200 value at first.

At 25%, you can consider 25% of them as counting as real ships, and 75% as resources:

(10+10+10)/100*250 + (10+10+10)/150*750
= 75 + 150 = 225 value

At 75%, you can consider 75% of them as counting as real ships, and 25% as resources:

(10+10+10)/100*750 + (10+10+10)/150*250
= 225 + 50 = 275 value

At 100%, they all count as real ships:
(10+10+10)/100*1000 = 300 value

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

[deleted initial post]

Oh its pointless to even comment. wont do anything just a shame all the shit suggestions about changing attacking cap were listened to.

Awful choice.
crashing for xp is now stupidly strong.

ps i like the prod hiding change though.

Rereedit.

Basically any big planet that gets roided for example with a week to go is then going to be pretty much marooned .
Not to mention they can lose 30% of roids in a tick ASWELL, so can work hard to cap them back and then bang gone again. This hasnt been thought through properly and i hope will be reviewed in some form.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I agree to Benneh check 3:4:12 for example and with those extra caps u get even more roids 20% roid plus means 20% more xp.
On that cap thingy and lose, its just u must change the xp formulae big time or u dont need to hold your roids and just xp whore.
3:4:12 just started the last weeks to xp whore realy if he done all round he would be t20. thats rediculous

5,47 mil score through XP for 3:4:12 with this new roid cap, atm. Would make rank #55 right now without any value from ships roids or cons or researches. Also the bigger planets there atm would have way less xp cause they dont land for 30%.
Think about that and reduce the formulae or make 1 xp only 30 score instead of 60
Btw, that guy i am talking about didnt play much this round if he would have played all round like in best time, he would have way more xp right now which anyway should give a hint to over think xp!
Also i wonder how many ppl land, as u get less roids it gets way harder to land any attacks or u do uber shit stats that no one can def again, real allys dieing anyway cause they arent as good anymore as before due to stats.
Oh as we are at defence pls go back up with salvage like 30-35% of own lost ships and maybe only 10-15% for attackers losses

I think its bad idea realy bad one :(

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Im not known as a basher or a farmer, but if this goes through I will not play because the insecurity of being big would be far to high, I support a variable cap, but not with so large margins. The rounds I have done well it has been not because I landed lots but because I could hold onto my rocks, but this encourages suicide runs and I couldnt live with it.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

this will take xp whoring to a new high. value based players will have shit round.

these will make def even less likely (cause it will be much harder to make people not land/crash), cause attacking will be worth more.
and with these stats i'd even consider xp whoring, while im usually a value player.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Can I recommend working this stuff out alongside stats, rather than just implementing it because it seemed like a good idea at the time?

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I wish to clarify my position, I support variable cap if it was only 10% margins not 20%, by all means make it harder for the big guys, dont destroy the whole way we play.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I like the changes. I really do. For the first time in a long time I have to say: good stuff right there Appoco!

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Actualy u cant get roids if your t50 or even t20 but lose all ****, btw what really happens if 6mil value attacks you with 4 mil but its 3 times 2 mil value planets hitting u? u lose that 30% or 15%

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

/o\

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

As someone who takes pride in loosing very little value but who is frankly pretty dire at roiding you are punishing me for playing well, keeping my value up and sending alot of defense fleets compared to attack fleets.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

The cap should be based on target value vs attacking fleets value.
Current changes are promoting even bigger teamups. Discouraging lowbies is bad I agree, but discouraging big planets is suicidal.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

seconded :up:

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

winner = whoever can crash most for roids

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I am totally in favour of making it harder for the big guys to stay up there. It should be hard to be top10! I feel there's a lot of overreacting in regards to these formulae. If you can't roid planets your own size, team up with your gal or alliance mates. If you're getting attacked by XP whores, play as a part of a team and arrange defence for yourself. In short, don't be a lazy whore.

All that said, I do believe that value has much more depth of play than XP does. As such, if it indeed turns out that XP is overpowered (and really, none of the people who posted here are qualified to make believable predictions, myself included), then the variables involved should be tweaked to give a slight edge to value. This is a step in the right direction though, and even if it turns out we overdid it slightly, it's still an improvement.


No, no, no, no. Terrible, terrible idea. But then again, that's par for the course.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Whilst the idea of variable cap is good and i applaud its attempt to reduce the bottom feeding that occurs in the game atm. It really does seem to punish the value player. to use a football comparison again...

Manchester utd are playing luton town in a cup match say for example luton score in this system them scoring would be like each goal counting for 3 considering utd's value of players this is ok however it would certainly knock utd down they may well be able to recover but since their goals against luton would only count for .5 of a goal they have to work much harder to get it back. This certainly does make for a more exciting match but definatly is unfair for utd.

How this reflects to PA. This change will certainly cause the rise of the xp whore again with a worst scenario of planets building pure pod fleets and crashing through defence for the opportunity to cap roids and keep their own value low to reduce potential losses.

I have two possible solutions

1) reduce the max value so variables change from 30/25 to 25/15, this does increase the variable size and will mean more diverse caps however it reduces the punishment on the larger player and keeps the protection of the smaller players

2) include score in the formula. using both should reduce the xp whores due to them needing both components to make the same cap :)

just two cents i think this is good change as it adds a new element to pa while at the same time reducing the impact on smaller / new players

cheers

Sebos

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I think this is going to be awesome :)
The only thing I woild recomend in addition is that defenders get more salvage, lets say 35% of defenders shippies and 50% of attackers shippies.

And ofc reduce allies to 50 or 60 planets and ban support planets :D

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Considering how last round looked, this would be an awful idea. I agree that an increase is in order, but 20/30 or 25/30 would be much closer to the mark.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I agree with it. But should be added also the defenders value fleet. And max cap should stay as it is, 25%. Minimum cap should be 10%.

Edit: on the other end, it would make even more xp whores. but this should be taken to avoid XP whore teamups.
Ah, and forget the defenders value fleet. Would make code even harder to manage and even way more xp whores.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

support :up:
to me it would make all the difference.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

so any descent xp whore can slack all round, and make top 30 with no effort at all.

in my eyes that is just wrong

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

hirr shall return and dominate the round

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

on noes how will elviz get roids now , he will need extra fleet slots to make up for the lower %cap :)

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Another change for r32 is alliance size going from 90 to 80...
What's the idea ?
Average members in top10 alliances is 58, why not just bring the alliance limit to 60 ? There's only 3 alliances capable of reaching 80 members, why give them an advantage ?

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Why put the others in an awkward position of having to many members? thats not fair heh

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Either we put a sensible limit or we don't put limit at all. atm it makes little sense. Looks like an half arsed measure aimed at making everybody happy... the best way to make everyone unhappy.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Pointless, really. Just remove it completely, please.

Far more important: Has the defense page been fixed already so that nobody can overwrite each others changes? I didn't take a look at it this round :o

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

The XP formula already has the "score" variable included, so XP whoring should'nt be as bad as the early days.

tbh i think most people (including me) attack people who are smaller to try and increase the chance of landing and getting easier roids.

I'm in favour of making bigger players attack equal sized players, however the unit stats would have to be good (and include my unified eta theory :P).

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

In theory it's quite a nice idea but as a few have said I think it's possibly a little too large. And yeah so if like we've done this round on achi/santa etc you send 25mil value on him & it can't be covered, yet we're still 1/2 his value as individual planets, we'd cap 30% of his roids? Going to absolutely breed XP whoring again.

Only way to counter it would be to raise salvage something drastic I think

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Thats mainly cause cath FI is imba tho Relig.

I agree that this has to be thought through more, and salvage HAS TO be increased!

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Salvage will be raised to 20/30, though I might push for 25/30, to punish XP whores for crashing fleet for score.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Luton can take Man Utd anytime! Just you wait! 28th of JULY!

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I could write an essay of 15 pages here about why we should or shouldn't do this. But there hasn't been a PA team that ever listens to anyone who suggests something in here. For once, try to think about what the game really needs. (A new portal that actually looks good so we attract new players. Make sure the game planetarion is actually mentioned on sites where online games are rated).

We have 1 problem. And that problem is NOT the asteroid capture ratio or the production hide thingy. We know you think you can help the noobs play better that way, but DEAL with it. The players who win now will win next round aswell.


I'll keep it short:

for ****s sake. Stop making totally useless additions to the game! (Everytime you add something to the game, 15 more people quit, and new players have even less chance of understanding the game).

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

indeed :P

Rank UniRank Coords Ruler Planet Race XP
1 70 3:4:12 the last the zikonians Xandathrii 76386
2 178 8:7:4 ToGood ToBeTrue Terran 47519
3 301 3:1:10 Ayumi Hamasaki Cathaar 46040
4 50 13:1:3 JUICE GRAPE Eitraides 45462
5 100 10:5:5 KING LEBRON MVP Cathaar 44721

dunno what to make of this new change, sounds a little dodgy but i guess i can judge once ive tried it and experienced it first hand (which wont be r32) if it's not removed as a failure before then

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I think this is an important point to consider. I personally would see achi as having played an excellent planet this round, second highest launcher in the universe and one of the top 2 or 3 defenders in ascendancy. Under this he'd get absolutely ****ed. So there's a massive teamup on him and he can't get covered. He loses 30% of his roids. Pretty gay. He then tries to cap them back. The highest target he can currently hit he'd cap 15% off. Now that's really gay.

Next round you'll see a lot of pure attack fleets, a lot of xp-whoring and very little value play. This. Is. What. Will. Happen.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

We all know that the most dedicated players will win regardless of the rules of the round - so what's the problem?

These changes just might help that lowbie planet in a galaxy raid, that typical planet with very little defence which ends up getting 5+ waves whilst the rest get a few because of the lazy bastards in the attack using it as their target because they're too lazy to find a decent alternative.

I'm sure that "playing for value" is just another term for "bashing the lowest planet possible for maximum roids".

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

nope

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Not being able to hide value in production, what's the best way to stay low in value to maximize XP and roid capping ? To crash.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

A lot of people worried about the XP whoring that would occur but maybe some new gameplay dynamics would make life more interesting.

It certainly prevents huge value players running away with the round, so defence will have to be more effective. Plus, you can probable land more than 1 attack a week now :|

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

You could have too if you hadn't emo-stopped attacking pt 300:salute:

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Basing cap around score rather than value (or the 2 combined) seems like a better idea to me.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

The Lowbie planet that gets no defence and 5+ waves is the planet who cannot be arsed to wake up in the middle of the night and arrange his own defense. He doesnt really care to be covered, else he would have been awake.

It's like real life really. You go to school, study, get a good job work hard and make a lot of money (The pa player who actually spends time playing) or the person who just didnt want to study, doesnt feel like working more then 30 hours a week and thus makes less money (the pa player who doesnt care about arranging his own defense).

In the end, out of 2000 players, 1900 won't be in the top 100. It's kinda pointless trying to figure something out in helping those 1900 getting in top100. It just doesn't fit

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

I think that if the ally limit is wanted at a low limit (say 60) then moving it down 10 at a time is not a bad idea as it turns down the volume of the Ascendancy based opposition who want no limit.

I would be very unhappy about being booted because the ally limit shrunk... but then I wouldnt be playing because of the cap thing, kill me once kill me twice it really dosent matter.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

So if I send 1/10th of the attacking fleet to a target with 1k roids I can get 1000/10*30%=30 roids, while my partner who's big gets 1.000 * 9/10 * 10% = 90?
Team-ups will be the way to go then.
Not only bigger planets, but also bigger galaxies will be targetted. That can help solve part of the current problems with the lower ranked galaxies.

We'll see lots of crashes. It really doesn't matter much because all the downsides to higher value (may attract more incomming, you will cap less).

Overall I think it's still a positive change though.

Xp should be tuned down a small notch to compensate. If you can get 20% more roids on an xp run, you should lower xp/roid by (almost) 20% as well.

And I also think 80 is too much for ally limit.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

No it's not, and it should not be. With that premise, please go and reconsider why people tend to play games and why they get frustrated with Planetarion when they a) do not sign up at PT 0, and/or b) do not know people playing this game and/or c) come out of protection with a relatively weak fleet (compared to the rest of the universe, relation being ticks passed) and/or d) land in a weak galaxy.

As you can see there are quite a few blindingly obvious reasons for why people can fail in this game without it being necessarily their own mistake.


Nothing wrong with that, that's giving incentive for people to cooperate, which over the time leads to people staying, which then means the meta game and the game itself get even more interesting again (more people!).

Indeed, that's a good thing. Being at the top should be a competition.

Crashing is not an option. Unless there is a really huge flaw in the stats its going to be something that you can consider a one-time bonus you could speculate upon. Since crashing hands your fleet value over to your target while at the same time it extremely reduces your chances on landing another attack.

:up:

Most likely, yes.

No, no and no again. mz made some very nice graphs for the rounds where we had alliance limits, and if it has shown one thing, it is that alliance limits do not increase how many alliances exist. The only reason I can think of would be to allow more smaller tags to theoretically compete for the top tag rank, but that's really not going to happen since a lot of the bigger alliances will simply create their second, third, fourth etc tag and thus those will, due to cooperation, start being the top tags still. So nothing changes, really, except that new people get a false impression on "fairness". Fairness should only be equal chances, and everyone signing up PT 0 gets them.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

Just for completeness.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

It's worth mentioning a big difference between this round and round 16, by the way, a difference that will put a serious damper on XP whoring: multi targetting.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

well correct me if im wrong but if it was 50man tags for instance.. then big alliances make alliance1, alliance2 tags right.. well now if they do em then its harder for those diffrent groups to defend each other, since theres no eta advantage coming from tag.. like it is atm..
so basicly yes 50man tags do have a better chance to step against that alliance1 and alliance2 groups..

one other thing.. yes there has been some alliance tag limits introduced and changed in several rounds.. i didnt play for some rounds between r12-20 or something like that, so i might b wrong, but havent the player limits been changed like max 10ppl or so ? from lets say from 80ppl to 70 ? in that case its no wonder that it hasnt changed any political situation cos big alliances have just cropped their dead weight and played on without those 10 not so good players :P..

now if u changed it dramaticly, again an example of tag limit50, then it might have a diffrent impact.. or ?

i guess we cant predict this stuff that good, tho its something that quite many players agree to try and tbh the round cant get any worse than it is atm :D

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

To make a long answer short: Use the search function for mz's graphs. Take a look at them. Notice that we have been as far down as 60 per alliance tag and it still did not change things.

Re: Round 32 Changes
 

If the idea of smaller tags doesnt sit well with the people looking at the graph, then they also would see that the alliance limit is not needed.