Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
If you read my post, you'll notice that even if the assumption of increased bashing is true, smaller players are still better off with VB capping. You are not responding to my line of reasoning. If you feel my arguments are flawed, point out how, instead of copy pasting the same rhetoric over and over again.
There is only one question here that I'm fundamentally interested in: does VB capping reduce the impact of bashing? This has my interest because the point at which most players quit is not when they're top 10 and get bored of attacking top 300 planets. It's when they're barely top 1000 and get bashed to oblivion every night. VB capping ensures that even if they get more incomings (which is still an assertion I have seen no evidence for), they still lose less than without VB capping.
Nothing you've said so far appears to lead to a negative answer to my fundamental question (which, by the way, really does have only two answers).
As for people who didn't bash in the first place, for them, VB capping changes very little, because their targets are big enough that VB capping has very little influence. That is the mathematical nature of the formula used.
On a sidenote, I would be a fool if I weren't willing to consider alternate approaches to reaching the same goal. Your earlier post seemed to indicate that you had one. If so, I would be glad to hear it. |
It's not a closed ended question because the answer is not on a single spectrum. Your question was a
False Dilemma.
Now, where as it is true that VB-cap does fix the incentive to send the old style of bash+roid fleets, it has instead reduced it to simply sending a bash and roid fleet. In effect, there is no benefit to the smaller player, as the attacker has no incentive to send any more proportional fleets than they did under the bash+roid strategy. In fact, it encourages everyone to send larger fleets, as opposed to proportional fleets. This, by the way, is a bad thing, and renders the former style of attacking larger players rather impossible as it forces higher and higher relative value to attack the same targets.
I do believe your introduction of the rank 1k planets into this discussion is a
Red Herring btw, seeing as how it in no way changes the nature of the argument.
Now, I've yet to see where you've stated how VB cap makes it less favourable for someone to send larger fleets with the intent of either forcing the opponent to run or to kill their entire fleet if they fail to do so. This, for the record, was the original issue taken with bashing, that it encouraged disproportionate measures and the active destruction of smaller planets, as opposed to proportionate attacks and simply roiding them. Therefor, the true issue has not been addressed.
As for demanding proof of something which we both know we can't get any data on, which is to say whether or not you or I am correct to state that the amount of bashing has either increased or decreased, is a matter of
Negative Proof. Simply because I can't prove that I am right, does not make your correct either. As such, we can only fall back on logic, of which you have displayed none. Now, if indeed you insist on getting your anecdotes of support (as implicit in requiring proof of something which you can not provide any more evidence for than I can), as silly as that would be
since Anecdotal Evidence is a fallacy itself, let me point out that more players take fewer targets today than before, more and bigger team-ups are used than before, and this all is in line with the logic of a inclination towards disproportionate attacks. Now, there are other factors contributing to this, but VB-cap is still one of them.
And so, you ask what the alternative would be? Well, it seems rather obvious, it would be to encourage proportionate attacking, and minimizing the damage done by disproportionate attacks upon smaller players. The solution then would be a variable salvage and cap formulae based on attacker and defender value. This presents a possible issue in that if it were based on total value usage, it would not enable the takedown of larger planets, and as such it should be based around a comparison between the largest single fleet value vs. the defending planets fleet value. As the attack grows more disproportionate, the cap becomes lower and the target is compensated by increasing salvage. However, with this system, no bash limit is needed any longer, as it's not beneficial to the top players to bash, nor is it hurtful to the smaller players to get bashed. Further, because it encourages proportionate fleets, it discourages attacking smaller targets, as it means a greater proportion of the fleet could not be used. So, instead it encourages proportionate attacking of bigger targets, and more attacks hitting more planets.
Most importantly, it doesn't needlessly limit the options available as to how anyone should play.