Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Planetarion Suggestions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000 (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=201853)

Caj 15 Sep 2019 01:12
Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Awhile ago, when distorter had 500 cu to build and amps had 1000 cu it was possible to finish a round and be unscannable.

I did this in late 60s, I was a modestly ranked planet (80th) or so.

Later amps cu was changed to 800

Now it's impossible to be unscannable as a dist whore will always need 1 amp, and scanners can max out 300 amps with 800 cu.

Having amps at 1000 cu means that within the allotted tick time it's not possible for scanners to have 300 amps

This would add a nice option for players and increase the worth of dist

Pit 15 Sep 2019 05:51
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caj (Post 3263616)
Now it's impossible to be unscannable as a dist whore will always need 1 amp, and scanners can max out 300 amps with 800 cu.

Having amps at 1000 cu means that within the allotted tick time it's not possible for scanners to have 300 amps
FWIW last round only 4 scanners had 280+ amps. Only 6 had 240+. The exponential construction costs added in round 78 were probably the main reason for this - 300 amps is *very* expensive.

[DDK]gm 15 Sep 2019 12:28
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
nonsense, amps are too expensive as it is compared to dists.

its about time that the cost of dists were raised!

Mzyxptlk 23 Sep 2019 17:13
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Disagree on raising the CU cost of amps. 500 vs. 800 is already good enough to be able to reach immunity, and you don't really need the one amp.

I'm also against raising the cost of dists. The comparison is not fair, because scanners don't have to worry about their score (the ones that go for 250+, anyway), while disters do (even non-distwhores).

Maybe raise the CU cost on both, though (by the same factor) so you can sleep a bit longer without missing ticks? 1000 maximum CU queued is only 5 ticks of activity for Tot/Ter.

Illuvatar 29 Sep 2019 14:48
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Both Amps and Dists should have the same CU

Ave 29 Sep 2019 14:53
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuvatar (Post 3263684)
Both Amps and Dists should have the same CU
This.

Paisley 29 Sep 2019 16:17
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
keep the status quo

Mzyxptlk 1 Oct 2019 14:15
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuvatar (Post 3263684)
Both Amps and Dists should have the same CU
I disagree with this too (trifecta!). Scanners can focus on amps exclusively, and disters have to build some other structures (at least 2 factories, for starters), so having dists cost a little less CU than amps seems good to me. Keep in mind also that disting is actually not a good strategy: the highest finishing rank for a planet with 150+ dists in the last 4 rounds is AgnitS with 231 dists at rank 126 in round 82. Most distwhores don't even break into the top 200. I see no reason to make it even worse, other than by helping both disters and scanners to sleep at night.

Pit 2 Oct 2019 05:36
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3263693)
I disagree with this too (trifecta!). Scanners can focus on amps exclusively, and disters have to build some other structures (at least 2 factories, for starters), so having dists cost a little less CU than amps seems good to me. Keep in mind also that disting is actually not a good strategy: the highest finishing rank for a planet with 150+ dists in the last 4 rounds is AgnitS with 231 dists at rank 126 in round 82. Most distwhores don't even break into the top 200. I see no reason to make it even worse, other than by helping both disters and scanners to sleep at night.
Agreed

Ave 2 Oct 2019 20:38
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3263693)
I disagree with this too (trifecta!). Scanners can focus on amps exclusively, and disters have to build some other structures (at least 2 factories, for starters), so having dists cost a little less CU than amps seems good to me. Keep in mind also that disting is actually not a good strategy: the highest finishing rank for a planet with 150+ dists in the last 4 rounds is AgnitS with 231 dists at rank 126 in round 82. Most distwhores don't even break into the top 200. I see no reason to make it even worse, other than by helping both disters and scanners to sleep at night.
Why scanners shouldnt play?

Caj 3 Oct 2019 06:01
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Actually mz suggestion of changing cu for both could be nice solution to all

Amps cu 1500
Dist cu 1100

Would mean high amp rarely max out at 300 and make playing unscannable a possibility again

Mzyxptlk 3 Oct 2019 12:02
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Amps at 1000 CU (max 10 hours of sleep for Ter/Tot) and dists at 800 or 900 (9 hours of sleep for Ter/Tot) seems fine to me. Making it much higher means the costs of amps and dists go down, which I'm not sure we need? *shrug*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ave (Post 3263698)
Why scanners shouldnt play?
Scanners give up on FCs and refineries, so they play with a ~50% value handicap (48% at 2000 roids, 60 FCs and 100 refineries, worsening the fewer roids you have). Distwhores have the same handicap, but in theory they make up for it by being unscannable and thus being extremely fat (in practice dists don't compensate enough, and that's why they usually end outside of the top 200).

Pit 4 Oct 2019 09:53
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caj (Post 3263699)
Amps cu 1500
Dist cu 1100

Would mean high amp rarely max out at 300 and make playing unscannable a possibility again
I don't think "rarely" comes into it with those numbers.

Scanners already rarely reach 300 amps - check the Misc Stats. Or, for that matter, the rest of this thread.

Amps are already quite high CU at 800 - your suggestion makes them by far the most time-intensive. It would make distorters super costly too, making that unviable.

Ave 4 Oct 2019 14:32
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3263700)
Amps at 1000 CU (max 10 hours of sleep for Ter/Tot) and dists at 800 or 900 (9 hours of sleep for Ter/Tot) seems fine to me. Making it much higher means the costs of amps and dists go down, which I'm not sure we need? *shrug*


Scanners give up on FCs and refineries, so they play with a ~50% value handicap (48% at 2000 roids, 60 FCs and 100 refineries, worsening the fewer roids you have). Distwhores have the same handicap, but in theory they make up for it by being unscannable and thus being extremely fat (in practice dists don't compensate enough, and that's why they usually end outside of the top 200).

Indeed. So make amps cheaper ��

Mzyxptlk 4 Oct 2019 16:32
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pit (Post 3263701)
Amps are already quite high CU at 800 - your suggestion makes them by far the most time-intensive. It would make distorters super costly too, making that unviable.
It would make both cheaper. The more time they take to build, the fewer you build in a round, and the less resources they end up costing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ave (Post 3263703)
Indeed. So make amps cheaper
Uh... Yeah, I agree. Weird that I didn't think of that when I was making your point for you!

Pit 4 Oct 2019 19:06
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3263704)
It would make both cheaper. The more time they take to build, the fewer you build in a round, and the less resources they end up costing.
Cheaper in M/C/E, but time is also a resource.

Patrikc 5 Oct 2019 03:51
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Given that massing dists is almost always a bad idea...

Why not make Amps/Dists only a game of cat-and-mouse for incoming scans, and make all other scans unaffected by dists? You get rid of the need for scanners (high amp scanners, that is - you'll still want someone to rush research). People will still invest in dists in order to fake attack, and the same for Amps to deter/spot said fake attacks.

Shhhhhhh 5 Oct 2019 14:41
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc (Post 3263706)
Given that massing dists is almost always a bad idea...

Why not make Amps/Dists only a game of cat-and-mouse for incoming scans, and make all other scans unaffected by dists? You get rid of the need for scanners (high amp scanners, that is - you'll still want someone to rush research). People will still invest in dists in order to fake attack, and the same for Amps to deter/spot said fake attacks.
awesome idea.

Mzyxptlk 5 Oct 2019 19:49
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pit (Post 3263705)
Cheaper in M/C/E, but time is also a resource.
Doesn't matter. If you doubled the CU cost of amps and dists, no one who was previously scannable becomes unscannable and no one who was previously unscannable becomes scannable, modulo rounding issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc (Post 3263706)
Given that massing dists is almost always a bad idea...
I for one like that disting is possible, even if it's bad. I do agree that it's unfortunate that dedicated scanners are practically necessary, but it's worth keeping in mind that many scanners really do enjoy their task.

Pit 5 Oct 2019 22:03
Re: Increase CU on wave amp back to 1000
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3263711)
Doesn't matter. If you doubled the CU cost of amps and dists, no one who was previously scannable becomes unscannable and no one who was previously unscannable becomes scannable, modulo rounding issues.
I see your point, but it still unbalances it when e.g. 3 factories = 1 amp instead of 2 amps. That may be desirable, but it will have an effect because other non-dist structures will be relatively cheaper.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3263711)
I for one like that disting is possible, even if it's bad. I do agree that it's unfortunate that dedicated scanners are practically necessary, but it's worth keeping in mind that many scanners really do enjoy their task.
No arguments here. I think being unscannable should be possible (if challenging)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:52.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018