Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

Thrackan · 14 Dec 2006, 09:23

To count Alliance rankings based on Value is in my opinion a failing method, because:

1: Loads of people play for their alliance. It includes a social aspect into the game. Making it easier for people to go for XP and play individually will lessen that social aspect.

2: Making value a bigger aspect will make races unbalanced. Zikonian will have a great advantage, being able to steal value. IF, and only IF, you are going through with the change, this balance should be restored. That, in my opinion, is impossible as long as single planets and galaxies are still rated by Score.

3: Value mostly represents your ability to stock, build and stay as safe as possible. It represents NOT your ability to arrange attacks and defense. It will simply mean the ally that racks up the most resources in the round stays on top.

4: Value on a planet represents the danger you risk attacking said planet. I will explain that below, where I propose alternative change. Value + XP represents an alliance's achievement. I do not believe alliances should be ranked on risk factor, I believe in ranking on achievement.

Furthermore, I believe that a change in the gamesystem, namely ADDING xp to gameplay some rounds before, made ALL players attack and defend a whole lot more, bringing more and better actual warfare to the game.

Alliance gameplay revolves around warfare, and not being rewarded for waging war demotes alliances to social clubs at most. I think alliance gameplay is a big part of PA and is to be taken, and kept, seriously.
Combining both effort and quality into score gives a good representation of how *good* an alliance is. Removing effort will only keep the elite players on top.
-----------------------
Now, I DO want to propose something in alternative to said round change:

In my opinion, XP is a very easy way to rack up score right now. Land on a big planet and you are halfway there. There are two thing I propose to make XP a bit more balanced:

1: XP points should be worth less score, say 40-50 instead of the current 60. This because only 1 land can already boost you very high up, which does not make it 100% resemblant to the effort needed.

2: XP formula should be based on value/roids ONLY. This because of the following:

- It is very easy to land on a big score planet when he has no ships. Landing on a planet which has no defense of its own should hardly be rewarded. You can already be happy with the free roids in my opinion.

- If said does have a lot of resources stacked up, that will also count towards value. Value is thusly the most representative factor of the danger you risk when attacking such a planet.

----
Now, I know this rant will probably be read and dismissed by the team. I will just add to this that I have enjoyed gameplay like it was r19, even with XP to be worth a bit too much imho. Demoting XP would mean a lot less pleasant gameplay, at least for me.

14 Dec 2006, 09:23	#26
Thrackan NewDawn peon Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dutchieland Posts: 18	Re: Round 20 Changes To count Alliance rankings based on Value is in my opinion a failing method, because: 1: Loads of people play for their alliance. It includes a social aspect into the game. Making it easier for people to go for XP and play individually will lessen that social aspect. 2: Making value a bigger aspect will make races unbalanced. Zikonian will have a great advantage, being able to steal value. IF, and only IF, you are going through with the change, this balance should be restored. That, in my opinion, is impossible as long as single planets and galaxies are still rated by Score. 3: Value mostly represents your ability to stock, build and stay as safe as possible. It represents NOT your ability to arrange attacks and defense. It will simply mean the ally that racks up the most resources in the round stays on top. 4: Value on a planet represents the danger you risk attacking said planet. I will explain that below, where I propose alternative change. Value + XP represents an alliance's achievement. I do not believe alliances should be ranked on risk factor, I believe in ranking on achievement. Furthermore, I believe that a change in the gamesystem, namely ADDING xp to gameplay some rounds before, made ALL players attack and defend a whole lot more, bringing more and better actual warfare to the game. Alliance gameplay revolves around warfare, and not being rewarded for waging war demotes alliances to social clubs at most. I think alliance gameplay is a big part of PA and is to be taken, and kept, seriously. Combining both effort and quality into score gives a good representation of how good an alliance is. Removing effort will only keep the elite players on top. ----------------------- Now, I DO want to propose something in alternative to said round change: In my opinion, XP is a very easy way to rack up score right now. Land on a big planet and you are halfway there. There are two thing I propose to make XP a bit more balanced: 1: XP points should be worth less score, say 40-50 instead of the current 60. This because only 1 land can already boost you very high up, which does not make it 100% resemblant to the effort needed. 2: XP formula should be based on value/roids ONLY. This because of the following: - It is very easy to land on a big score planet when he has no ships. Landing on a planet which has no defense of its own should hardly be rewarded. You can already be happy with the free roids in my opinion. - If said does have a lot of resources stacked up, that will also count towards value. Value is thusly the most representative factor of the danger you risk when attacking such a planet. ---- Now, I know this rant will probably be read and dismissed by the team. I will just add to this that I have enjoyed gameplay like it was r19, even with XP to be worth a bit too much imho. Demoting XP would mean a lot less pleasant gameplay, at least for me.