Stats Round 27
So what's the plan? Completely new stats? The current stats? The current stats, but slightly modified? And who's going to do it?
|
Re: Stats Round 27
I hope at least the ETD will be changed. Give them back a steal ship or better replace their EMP-Cloak by a Steal-Cloak... too nasty ?
|
Re: Stats Round 27
A complete overhaul of one race inevitably leads to an overhaul for the other races (or at least it should).
|
Re: Stats Round 27
I thought this rounds stats were pretty balanced, with etd and terran doing worst and zik/cath doing best so I dont think a complete overhall is necessary. tbh it depends on what ppl thought of the stats, if a lot of ppl hated them then they should have a complete overhaul, if most ppl liked them just fiddle a bit.
while I think complete overhauls are needed from time to time its probably not necessary this time. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Cat and Zik were very good this round. Maybe a bit more firepower to Ter and Xan. Etd need more defense ;}
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
Also, Caths were falling, and would have kept on falling. Shorter rounds benefit caths, as did the prevalence of caths. Ziks did well in part because Asc was mainly zik. Etd supposedly have trouble holding on to roids, which is to be expected if you only use their EMP ships. There may be some tweaking to be done, but as a whole the stats are quite balanced. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Xan never needs an upgrade. People have complained about Xan getting worse every round, but really nothing changes.
I heard some complaints about Etd CR, though I'm not sure how legitimate they were. Gate seemed unable to come to an agreement with Wishmaster over it. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
it may simply be that there were loads of terran scanners and almost none of the best players chose them but then U have to ask the question y did a load of ppl who have normally been terran and done well with them before decide they would not be able to play them in r26? |
Re: Stats Round 27
terran statistics get always skewed because of it being the choice for nubs, real statistics are harder to get
|
Re: Stats Round 27
I wonder if the poor performance of terr has something to do with the similar situation with etd or vice versa because as far as fr fleets go they are natural team ups the emp directly compensating for the terr init problem - and as a DC I saw very few terr bs fleets for no obvious reason because it was probably better than the fr fleet really
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
also I was a complete nub in r24 who played terran and was T100 :p and anyhow if thats the case then y did so few old players not play them? May 17 00:29:33 <booji> terran did really badly this round May 17 00:29:44 <Bazza> well it was bound too May 17 00:29:52 <booji> yeh did well last round May 17 00:29:52 <beward> they wernt to bad May 17 00:29:59 <Bazza> one glance at the stats told me that May 17 00:30:01 <beward> on targets without FR def at least :P May 17 00:30:12 <Bazza> & I've played terran for 20+ rounds May 17 00:30:39 <booji> yeh I played em the last 2, they did not look like they would do well May 17 00:30:41 <Bazza> but no way was I gonna play with poxy FR pods May 17 00:30:57 <Bazza> so I went xan instead May 17 00:31:20 <Bazza> & played it like terran seems like the reason to me? |
Re: Stats Round 27
To me Terrans seemed okay in active gals but being a big Terran must be really hard, seeing as getting roids with such late inits and the FR being really shit against fi\co def.
As for etd Id be inclined to perhaps make one of the etd FR ships into kill or steal . |
Re: Stats Round 27
To be honest having a quick look at the final rankings I don't think terran were that bad at all. In ascendancy we had one terran player who would have definitely gotten t100 bar the fact he crashed horrifically twice. Denial have one terran player on our intel in the t500, he finished 82nd. Nox have two, one t100, one 350th or so. ND have two, one was 30th or so, one was 250th. xVx have three, one 250th, one 430th and one exactly 500th. Now if those are the top five alliances and you consider the fact that you could probably make t500 by logging in once a day and building mines I think the problem with terrans was the fact they were underrepresented as a whole among capable players, not that they were fundamentally flawed. Looking at the sandmans rankings and who finished as the best terrans the indication is that it's not the same sort of problem that cathaar experience where they need tons of def. The second and third ranked terrans for example are in galaxies outside the t50. In general though people didn't think terran were good so didn't pick them.
Etd are kind of weird. I'd probably do something different with them again if I had the choice like sticking all their ships in two classes like we tended towards this round a bit. They don't really fit in that well though. What I wouldn't do is go back to making them the hodge podge of races that they have been in previous rounds. That just ****ing sucks. Edit: Reasons like they didn't have de pods so I didn't go for them are basically irrelevant in terms of an objective evaluation of the stats. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Hi all!
i was a nub this round. thats why i chose terran. they are definetly underrated. terran BS for the winz!!! |
Re: Stats Round 27
A quote from the movie Boondock Saints:
"This mix-and-match shit has got to go!" And that's all I'm going to say about ETD steal-ships. The best terrans went pure fr-fleets afaik. The amount of tarants and bombers aroung made the bs-fleet a lot harder to pull off. Nfi who Bazza is, but I had 4 traditional terrans in my BP and I've not heard any complaints from the two that did play terran(me and lordn chose zik since my plan was to go 2terr/2zik and we have more experience with them). |
Re: Stats Round 27
maybe something for etd.. would not really chance much else, the players made the ranks not the stats this round.
About etd.. only thing what makes me wonder about them it the fact why didn't anyone try arrowheads in their att fleets to force defence actually to send fighting ships instead of just pure emp flak.. Anyways damn good race in team up's with zik's.. or just in team up's with terrans but that still leaves them vulnerable to mass fi/co flak.. so would need a zik as 3rd guy late in the round.. About xan's.. saw exactly one good fleet out of them, people went too much for fr/de or pure fi/co. With fr/de fleet, and a lot of phantoms you could have 2-3 fleeted with "real" looking fr/de to each target or kept phantoms for ally def.. Anyways didn't see anyone doing this as pro choice.. so have to wonder why.. as it would have been efficient as hell just like my early round roidings with fi+ 50% fr/de x 2 fleets what both looked like full zik fr/de fleets especially in team ups with xan's.. only that xan can do it after fleet analyzis aswell.. what's ridiculously advantage what I didn't see no one using.. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Terrans can do well but i honestly dont see Terrans with the current stats have much to doin the t10\20 even if more good players went them.
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Im not saying that terrans cant do well, ofc they can! I think that any race can, and indeed could with any of the stats of the last few rounds. the main point is that if you are looking at the stats it appears that if there are weaker races they appear to be terrans and etd. it appears from what sun_tzu is arguing is that U would change nothing, I was simply saying that perhaps terrans and etd were 1st in line for some tweaking, not that they require wholesale changing!
^^I am not quite sure how that makes me a moron in the context of a debate about whether there should be any changes to the stats, and if so how much. Assuming something is going to be changed (something normally is) it seems to me that terrans and etd would be the 1st I would fiddle with and I believe that I am entitled to this view as much as you are entitled to yours. (ps done in edit as another post would certainly not contribute to the topic) |
Re: Stats Round 27
I'll make only 1 quote from PA:
Eitraides 183(12%) i read steal ships are bad, old ETD stats were crap, but people played them in r25... what the point in having a 'great ETD r26 stat set' if nobody pick them ? |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
|
Re: Stats Round 27
bring back single targeting :(
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Yes I'm a cath "fanboy". Just to start with that.
Cath , have the highest average score. 3rd average value , 3rd average on roids. The reason Cath's have so much xp, is that if you dosn't get enough def, you need to get score without keeping roids. There is only one way to become a huge cath, get def and keep your roids. Wich basically aint going to happend if your not a defleech ! I have said it before and can say it again.. Cath's can almost not be to powerfull, they get roided anyways. So basically, cath on their own is way underpowered. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
Again, new people should choose their race on what appeals to them, rather than a race that is spoon fed to them. If they choose a race more in line with their own personality, they will play the game better. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Their should be some more firepower for terrans, have always played them exept for one round as etd.
the only good attack ship are wyvern, frigs were to easy to freeze when attacking cath, so that only left etd to attack them with and often needed a team up. so i would give some more firepower to terran frigs, certainly because of terrans being weak anti co. |
Re: Stats Round 27
I think the problem with etd this round wasnt so much with their steal/cloak/emp balance, it was more to do with the fact that out of all the races they had the least concentrated fleets. ETD cr was been slated as being poor in practice, but without it etd's had no anti cr to speak of, and due to the fact they had to flak huge numbers of taras they needed considerable numbers of cr, that then made their 'good' roiding fleet of fr weaker than other races of comparable value. Lancers with cr as t2 would have made them far more viable.
I dont know if it was intentional or not but their were actual choices to be made for the most part in regards to which fleet to build, as both were viable options. The majority of xans went de + bombers, though the co was just as good (the #1 xan was fi/co + bombers). Cath was co and taras or cr and beets. ziks went heavy de from what i saw, though arguably that was a result of the prevelance of taras and the use of fr flak vs caths. It's certainly something that we've not seen much of in the last few rounds and only really etd that were forced to build both or leave themselves open to an attack class. No doubt they along with terrans were also under-represented by active players, though arguably thats merely a reaction to them being weaker on paper. All in all though i wouldnt object to a slight rework of the current stats as has been the tend recently, as they were well done and balanced for the most part. Id prefer a new set though, mainly because eveyone knows what works well now and repitition is boring. Changing stats is like the only real variety we get between rounds of pa, and at least a new set require a measure of intelligence to work out. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
Further, if you think players check the manual and stats before even signing up, you're flat out objectively wrong. In all honesty, I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue with you, because when you're spewing out this nonsense, you're obviously not going to change your mind, no matter how many rational arguments I provide to convince you otherwise. Quote:
P.S. Sorry Sov :( |
Re: Stats Round 27
Lancer as Fr->BS\CR couldnt work as one race shouldnt target everything with 1 class. Changing Lancer to DE class and targetting cr\bs could work though, although that would mean that there would yet again be noone building cr\bs.
Ideally both attackfleets should be viable imo. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
|
Re: Stats Round 27
@Mzyxptlk
i'm aware that every race has it's weakness, but their must be something wrong with terrans, because haven't seen many top Terrans this round. Is this because of new players taking Terran, doubt it, have seen many old players taking Terran too. And hardly getting in to top 100. |
Re: Stats Round 27
From the outside it looks like cath are still fundamentally 'broken', in as much as they're a win big or lose big race. I'd be tempted to dump them or etd, and have no race with over 3 or 4 EMP ships.
I'd also love to see a round with more branching tech tree. I have an idea for a set and if I can thrash them together I'll try to put them up after my exams. EDIT: If we're not going to make drastic changes, I'd like to see these stats used as a basis for a few more rounds. Seems silly to throw out a decent set. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Caths have only one big problem, need to be extremely active, and almost no killships.
But then again, if they have a good mix of emp and killships they would be to powerfull. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
So, yeah. A clearer progression for Terrans if they are to be a default race is important. Imo. GJN: Armour helps as you're less likely to get outright killed (read: demotivated, quit) as easily or frequently. Eventually, players come to realise that other things like initiative, EMP and faking is important - but not necessarily from the get-go. Emphasis in training new players should be on early attacking, as risk taking behaviour like that is the fun part of the game. (EDIT: seems like Mz pointed this out too - sorry). I have to agree with Mz (though not with his tone - grr!) that new players to the game would even consider looking at the ship stats or race descriptions before starting to play. At best, a quick description on the signup page, eg (Terran - High armour, low firepower, poor initiative), Xandathrii (low amour, low firepower, poor initiative), Zikonian (High firepower, High armour, average iniative), Cathaar (High firepower, low amour, good initiative), Etd (who knows???) - would help in the situation you describe with no set "default race" - but i still think keeping Terran as the default because its simple is a good move. I mean, how do you describe the high firepower of Caths that doesnt actually kill them? And so on. Quote:
At the end of the day, though, is it really a worthwhile goal to try and achieve some sort of balance between the races? Is it important to have 20%/20%/20%/20%/20% of the universe as each race, or of the top 500, top 100, top 10? At what point is it OK to have differences in the proportion of races? I'm thinking that it isnt really that important to have a high proportion of each race in the top x ranks. As long as there is some variety (eg, 3 ideally 4) races that are highly competitive in the top ranks just to keep things interesting. Now, i dont think that people should be screwed by choosing a weaker race, however the apparent weakness should be notable before the round starts so people can substitute away before the round starts ... but the next round, those top 3 might change. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
Quote:
Could one of you start a new thread about this topic to keep the discussion seperate (assuming that there wont be a major overhaul for this round, which i dont think will happen given that this set is still fairly fresh and only needs relatively minor tweaking)? I'd like to see the pros and cons that you discussed Mz, and the idea(s) that you had, Gate. Cheers. |
Re: Stats Round 27
To answer the original question in the thread, at this point unless someone wants to step up and mod/redo stats the same stats are going to be used for r27. Cin asked me to do them, but I simply don't have the time or the desire, if someone else wants to take a crack at it find me on IRC (#support or #strategy are always good places to find me).
Overall I thought the r26 stats were pretty good. They certainly had their problems, but as far as stats go we've had far worst. Having played Xan I will comment that Xans could easily get away with just building FR/DE (they could only really be beaten by EMP) which made them a bit boring to play in my opinion. I prefer when the stats make both attack fleets seriously viable options, and since xan DE were significantly better then CO I was a bit disappointed. Overall however well done Sun_Tzu and JBG. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
I generally hold that Terrans were quite balanced this round, as imho were all races. There's room for some minor tweaks, but most of what we saw this round was due to some races being represented to such a large extent(Cath mainly). Oh, and I hold that I am by far the most authoritative person on Terrans around, as I'm the only person of the old strategy crowd that got identified as a "typical terran" (check my pa-wiki page if you don't believe me, I've been annoyed at it for years now but cba to change it). Quote:
|
Re: Stats Round 27
I really dont want the EXACT same stats to be used for next round. Id like to see a few minor changes for etd\terran atleast.
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Let me propose a few changes then to spark som discussion:
Lancer changed from FR class to DE class and now targetting BS\CR. To 'counteract' this change Wyvern targetting to FR\DE Change the Centaur to targetting FR\Co Drake targetting FI\CO Phoenix targetting CO\FI Ideally what Id like some of this to do is for Terrans to build less Harpies and more phoenixes as the universe needs more anti co(IMO). Im not sure on the whole dmg\armour aspect after the new targetting changes but Im sure someone smart(HI JBG\SUN) can do something with that. |
Re: Stats Round 27
If there are no changes then I doubt I will play, not because I felt there was anything particularly wrong with last rounds stats but simply because I dislike monotony, and half the fun early round is working out new combos and stuff
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
Having the Drake targeting fi/co is effectively demanding that peg's make a return, and would certainly make terrans more difficult to be roided by xan or cat co (particularly with the centaur still targeting co as well) however it would mean that terrans would now probably feel they have to have both de and fr in attack fleet or else get alot of corsairs in defence against them. This would be even worse if they still have a hole against de in their fr attack fleet. wyvern targeting de too would on the other hand probably make the bs fleet too strong, although I am sure that some ppl think that the bs fleet is in need of an upgrade ;) so in effect would this be hobbling the fr (much like terran de was in r24/25) and a return to very effective bs fleets? |
Re: Stats Round 27
Im not sure, as I said it was posted to spark and argument.
If Terrans do focus on BS now theyre back to being wide open to co incs due to no fr flack. Yes the Drake would be alot like the old peg, however the init wouldnt have to be as early. I know noone would use the etd cr\bs(except maybe guardians for defence?) but surely it will make etd a bit more attractive to play. |
Re: Stats Round 27
also if there are to be de that target bs then the Zik bs also has to target de
|
Re: Stats Round 27
Does it really? Cant zik bs either team with Terran BS or simply not hit etds?
Seeing as the lancers would be out attacking most of the time. |
Re: Stats Round 27
Quote:
Quote:
how about simply changing the phoenix to fi class so that it is not always the 1st frozen by the beetle, (tho still vunerable to phants) and it would have the harpy to flack with it. and for etd make the kathal fireblade init 7 to make the fleet usable in attacks vs xans, or would this disadvantage xans too much? - as it stands it appears that the only potential target for etd cr is really cathaar |
Re: Stats Round 27
I think etd CR is mainly used as a teamup partner for caths.
Having phoenix as FI is a viable option yes. |
Re: Stats Round 27
How about something like this then:
Lancer as DE targetting BS\CR Phoenix now a FI targetting FI\CO(or co\fi?) Drakes moved to CR targetting DE\CR and renamed Syrens\Hydras. This would in my opinion also help Ter\Etd out. The obvious changes here then would be that the Ter FR fleet no longer targets DE class ships although how many people did actually build alot of Drakes? The Ter FR is still a viable attackfleet teamed up with etd and the cr\bs fleet is now a bit better seeing as it has more flack and Terrans can now survive building purely fi\cr\bs(as imo i think they should be able to). Xan DE now faces the problem of not targetting Drakes unless they send along bombers though. Hopefully this will mean more CR\BS fleets in the uni seeing as last round there was TOO MUCH fr\de in my opinion. is this a better solution? |
Re: Stats Round 27
The reason that were given last round for changing stats, mainly "it's fun to change" should still be valid for next round. Stats are changed for the sake of it. I understand that if it's not done this time it's only because nobody wants to spend the time.
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:05. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018