Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

Signups open. Stats are final.

I am Genevieve McGenius. I look at the stats for 2.18 seconds and instantly realize that while they look suited for value play, they're actually perfectly tuned for XP play. I keep my discovery a secret, planning to build MCs and XP whore from the start of the round.

I am Steven the Stubborn. I don't think. I don't plan. I see FCs, I build FCs. I see refs, I build refs. Value is the only way to play. XP is for chumps.

Fast forward. It's now tick 500. Genevieve has been building MCs and landing 3 fleets a night like a boss. Her plan is succeeding brilliantly. So brilliantly in fact that even Steven can't help but notice it. Him and the rest of the universe. Defense stops occurring. Landing rates soar. XP gains plummet. Some random well-connected hybrid value/XP planet ends up winning. They didn't notice XP was good any earlier than anyone else, just went with the flow.

What has Genevieve learned? What has the game taught her? This: planning is pointless. Whether your strategy succeeds or not depends more on what everyone else happens to be doing than on your own foresight and planning.

I don't think that's what we want. You don't change the size of the goal halfway through a football game, you don't change the damage Dragoons deal in Star Craft in the middle of a match, and you don't change the rules for how much XP you get for a given landing halfway through the round either.

I appreciate that XP round after XP round isn't the best for the long term health of the game, but the problem is not that big, and even if it were, this is not the way to fix it. When the admins change a formula or rule midround, the player base is up in arms. And rightfully so. So why is this OK?

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

The universe rarely change their plan half way through the round and change for XP.
Im not even sure people changing strats and the effect "global factor" will have afterwards is the biggest worry for Genevieve McGenius...
Gaining XP early on will be harder for the poor Genevieve McGenius, as defence usualy tends to start very late in the rounds now days because of people rushing cores/value, wich means more fleets will be landing earlier on wich again means less XP.

And everyone that has been playing PA for a while know that planning IS pointless, wether you succeed is based on luck or if you are cheating/surounded by cheaters.



I dont think the idea of having some sort of "global factor" is a bad idea, as it could stop the ketchup effect you often have with ST/offensive stats and XP.
Can you please write up some examples using the new formulae for us that are too lazy to read through the manual?

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

How do you calc it at eta 4?

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

Valid point, would be nice to see the formula

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

The one in the manual?

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

As much of a fan of a global factor i am, i did not say i liked or disliked the current approach for this round.

How do you calc it at any ETA should be the question realy, it would be best that the "global factor" is the same at launch as it is at land, then it would be less of a hassle trying to figure out if its a land or not.

Im not sure if it will be some where in game where it will say what the current global factor is?

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

The global factor is based on over 5000 launched fleets once you get past the first week. The most it will fluctuate in the time between launch and land should be 2-3%. Which means that for every 100k score you gain in xp you could see 3k score lost. I'm sorry, but if that's the difference between landing or not, you shouldn't be thinking about landing in the first place. It's obviously not worth it.

The only exception to this is the first day when the factor has to build up. Here i'd expect one sudden medium jump (+- 5%) after the first fleets land to find the start average. After that the land % will be similar in the other 6 days and you'll see the normal deviations at 2-3%.

If you take the difference between eta 4 and 0, you'll probably be looking at only 1-2% even outside the first day.

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

Well thanks for explaining so we dont have to go look in the manual.
Seems like the admins did a excelent job on calming the tempest in the teapot regarding XP being to strong, and thanks for calming the tempest in this little teapot Jintao.

Can we now please set the CU needed for MCs back to what it was?

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

Lol i don't see the Cu changing back before friday just cause you asked nicely

But don't underestimate XP. Since it's now mainly score driven. Overall the average amount of XP you earn has gone up. Not down. Just the differences between an XP or value planet won't be so huge anymore. So XP play isn't dead yet, it should be a nice supplement to any planet. Be it value or XP.

Re: Why having the global landing rate influence XP is a bad idea
 

Turn XP to value, idle score helps no one.

XP again courages to hit players on top of the game, instead of noob farm for free.

Not really analyzed what the changes do. But sounds like overrated.

XP is good, just use it better :)

I agree to taking of limitations or adding those to all.

Does AMP and DIST have equal build times/costs finally?