Quote:
Originally Posted by Ave
The politics play a big part also. Aswell as what kind of strategy majority chooses. You cant directly judge based on one round rankings. It is highly annoying that it is not worth hitting tags above u as they got zero value. The tags at rank 10-11 profit more xp wise. Hence it appears to have some issues still.
|
It wasn't that much different last round or the round before either. r82 had 4 value planets in the top 10, r83 had 6ish (the line is a bit blurry), r84 had 8. This proves there's enough variability in ship stats (not politics) to make XP either strong, OK, or mediocre. I see no reason to believe ship stats couldn't make XP outright bad either. No change to the XP formula is necessary.
As for 'higher ranked tags have no value', I don't think that's relevant, XP is about planets, not alliances. Even so, a
quick glance at KIA proves you wrong. I see no obvious relation between rank and either value/score ratio or value an sich. All relevant metrics (score/value/size, both total and per planet) trend downwards, regardless of whether I include or exclude outliers like p3nguins, DLR and/or Norsemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ave
Thats actually a decent tought to let only 2 fleets to be pre-launched offensively. When the af might be half decent to cover something.
|
That'd be an interesting experiment, it'd be interesting to see how it would work out.