Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ali
So you want #1 to not attack at all?
|
negative XP has its merits. For example, if the #1 is 2.5 times the score/value of the number 2, it cannot attack regardless. Similarly, if in your example above, the top 10 are all in the same alliance/galaxy, and they are the only ones above the bash limit, the #1 player cannot launch attacking fleets at all. Thus, the hard bash limits would not permit the #1 planet to attack at all. Afaik, the bash limits are in place, and thus this isnt considered to be too bad a situtation to be in.
However, using a negative XP system (with, presumably some degree of hard bash limit to remove sillyness), the #1 planet could attack any player in the top 100 (for example). This opens him/her up to a much larger number of planets that s/he can launch their fleet on, rather than suiciding their fleet into perfect counters or not launching at all. What needs must change, however, is perspective.
With a negative XP system, players would have to choose to trade off XP for value/roids. If they deem that value is more important than their amount of XP, only then would they attack players who would result in negative XP. For example, Player 1 has just been roided but has massive amounts of XP. He determines that he could attack Player 2 for more XP at the cost of fleet, resulting in a further XP gain and roids and a positive score result, but loss of attacking fleet. Or, he could attack Player 3, where he would loose small amounts of fleet, gains roids, but loose alot of XP for a negative score result. Player 1 thus has a choice of options that have different payoffs, both in the immediate term but also the long term (eg, roids payoff better in the long run, XP is more short run).
Such a situation, i think, makes XP more valuable as it then becomes another commodity to be stored and traded when the situation warrants its use.
My major concern with negative XP is that the formula would have to be so fine tuned as to be very careful of where it becomes viable to trade XP/score for roids/ships. I worry that it will return to Old Skool PA where you have players sending Pod fleets and Escort fleets at the same ETA - if the defender runs, they recall the Escort fleet and the pods cap and get roids and good XP and thus there is a positive score gain, if the defender stays, they die, the attacker caps roids but at negative XP and thus looses some score, but still gains roids (which was largely the point). Mind, that was when the roid cap was based on each individual fleet score, not the planet score, but i wonder if the same mentality could be applied.
There was something else i was going to say, alas it eludes me atm
.