|
|
10 Jun 2009, 00:54
|
#51
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
If the idea of smaller tags doesnt sit well with the people looking at the graph, then they also would see that the alliance limit is not needed.
|
Totally agreeing there. It's a limit that's not going to help anyone. It's been brought in to make "tags" comparable. Clearly that's not a way to do it. Basing a tag ranking on average score for example might be far more worthwhile, if it is counted properly. Maybe tag score cannot be expressed in terms of value and xp. Maybe there should just be a collection of different stats and then allow some sort of meta score for tags. We could go on about this for a very long time and we'd probably find flaws in every area. Then again that meta score just handed me an idea, let's see if I can write it down!
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
10 Jun 2009, 01:31
|
#52
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Any method of measuring performance is arbitrarily, however once it is established, that will be the method we will play by and more importantly, that will be the objective played, instead of the deeper thought behind the measurement system.
You could do, instead of AVG(Tag. Score) do Total_Tag_Score/#players^2. With a minimum of 15 people playing.
Or do Total_Tag_Score/St.Dev(Tag_Score) or ....
you extrapolate the data as if each alliance has a thousand members and then you get the 99% confidence interval of actual alliance tag score, using the ingame alliance score as a n-sized sample. And then you only win when your actual tag is bigger with a 99% confidence then any other tag ....
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
10 Jun 2009, 01:54
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
or suppress the alliances ranking... problem solved.
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
|
|
|
10 Jun 2009, 02:13
|
#54
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
shame out of tag deffing wasnt to be banned for r32.
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
10 Jun 2009, 08:36
|
#55
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makhil
or suppress the alliances ranking... problem solved.
|
Yeah, except that people would just use their intel to determine how much score each alliance has.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
10 Jun 2009, 13:40
|
#56
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Why do the team keep making changes that make me wanna play less
__________________
Rnd 1-7 Lost Honourguard (HC) WoH Bluetuba(BC) VtS(BC)
Rnd 26-32 Jenova Denial (BC) Newdawn (HC)
Rnd 33 Retired
|
|
|
10 Jun 2009, 15:09
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands (Crazy Dutchie)
Posts: 31
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Weeee Terran XP FR Crash Fleet Am gonna own
|
|
|
11 Jun 2009, 14:47
|
#58
|
Legionaire
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: nld
Posts: 50
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladel
Why do the team keep making changes that make me wanna play less
|
amen
__________________
Legion
and: NoS/FanG/Jenova/CT/DLR
Round 3 - 8 (Legion)
Round 9 - 10.5 (Nos/FanG)
Round 22 - 23 (Jenova)
Round 24 - 28 (CT HC)
Round 31 (DLR)
|
|
|
11 Jun 2009, 18:54
|
#59
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Christ. Attacking bigger planets is already giving you a good xp boost, this is such a huge increase to that its a joke. And in turn you make it harder for the people roided to gain it back. Maybe you should add a modifier that means you get more roidcap if your value rank is much higher than your size rank? Honestly, this suggestion is just as stupid as the one posted in the start of the thread.
I'm not someone that's low on XP normally or ever, but this is the wrong way to change stuff regardless of the aim. Does anyone actually want planet rankings where not getting inc is an even more important part than it is now?
Because that's what it is, a top planet losing a few waves at max cap has NO WAY to recover, regardless of activity. All he can do is wait for his value to drop, so he can attack others for decent xp/roid gain again.
On top of that, everyone will end up playing emp since certain races (mainly zik and terran) just cannot roid an equal value planet from another race but are easily roided for 30% by others. With the right kind of stats, maybe, just maybe it could work, but it would again require stats that took this into account (this round had stats that failed to adjust to alot lower salvage). Making a change like this before stats are final is just a kiss of death to the whole game.
__________________
Golan - Ascendancy
Planets.
Zik: 3rd(r30), 4th(r52), 7th(r27), 9th(r26), 31st(r51)
Ter: 3rd(r50), 4th(r53), 4th(r37), 5th(r31) 7th (r58)
Xan: 3rd(r36), 40th(r57) 54th(r33), 104th(r29)
Cat: 8th (r54), 9th(r48), 12th (r55), 20th(r32), 77th(r23), 103rd(r38), 150th(r34), 152nd(r24),
Etd: 14th(r28)
Those damn emp races..
|
|
|
12 Jun 2009, 06:45
|
#60
|
Finn.. who's drunk.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 285
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
I gues the idea is to make round winners to be lucky of not being hit instead of active..
Might increase cr/bs usage.. depending on stats, but otherwise heh, Would not want to waste my gaming time when one raid can drop you out completely.. before it was one crash.. now it's one or two succesful waves on your planet what are ridiculously easy already to do due to ship targettings in stats.
__________________
r2 Thieves
r3: top100(p0rks0da rox) r4: top400(excadrix, pcmaster+me=gal 99th) r5: top150(before giving up, nocex didn't rock) r6:evu and drunk dwarf (top50)
r7: wasted c27 gal, sucky luck in clus. r8: In real Finnish infantry.. 270days r9: boring round as hell
r9.5: Top60(small playerbase=easy)
Few won R's in PIA, r26 top15 First/Last Pax round.
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
10 lines max for signature I heard.. so
|
|
|
12 Jun 2009, 09:59
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
I was new again this round so am technically still a noob, but been reading other peoples posts, remember you're trying to attract new players not kill off old players, people have to be able to aim at a high ranking otherwise the game is intensively boring, remember that. If need be have a longer period inbetween rounds if it means the difference between cocked up stats and a playable game in the end. Please don't send the game to a Euthanasia clinic in Switzerland to be retired peacefully.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 13:51
|
#62
|
Subh HC
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 215
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
1 - If the problem is xp whoring, take xp away. Then smaller planets can roid larger ones but the point then is to help them get roids to increase value at a faster rate, and make it harder for a top player to be a top player. Only problem here is xp whoring which increases core but not value and keeps suiciding low value for high xp caps.
2 - Another solution would to make xp incremental, if you have 10,000 xp then you would gain less xp per roid then someone with 500 xp.
3 - Or you could do what cut xp down a bit before and do it based on score and value, since xp whores gain score ut constantly have low value, their attacks will become less whorish possibly preventing it from being a "pure" tactic, involving xp as a small score factor, and still encouraging at least some value while encouraging eple to ht larger or equal sized targets.
__________________
Subh - The rise of honor, loyalty and dedication
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 13:56
|
#63
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
1. It's not.
2. XP = score, score is in the XP formula.
3. It is.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
27 Jun 2009, 03:49
|
#64
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
lol.
I ve been to Capri / napoli for 9 days now. I get home, have been settled to a bp, and check the stats. I spend my regular 5mins to do so!
GOD! if I had known about this change, I would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever play this round.
**** YOU APPOCOMASTER!
and now, my bp claims I m forced to play, and not allowed to quit. god.
worst change in a long time. sigh. You guys are doing a great job at killing pa!
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
27 Jun 2009, 03:58
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 374
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Mmm why make such rules...
Everyone starts the same, why disable the players that actually put more time in then the "noobs"? You are punishing your dedicated players to satisfy people that actually dont give a crap? Come on this is the most retarded rule ever.. sadly enough i didnt hear about this rule BEFORE someone paid a credit for me.
Why not just close the game for people who ended too high in the past! So the noobs can finish up higher!!!
|
|
|
27 Jun 2009, 19:14
|
#66
|
Legionaire
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: nld
Posts: 50
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wouter
Why not just close the game for people who ended too high in the past! So the noobs can finish up higher!!!
|
Thats up for round 33. No worries!
__________________
Legion
and: NoS/FanG/Jenova/CT/DLR
Round 3 - 8 (Legion)
Round 9 - 10.5 (Nos/FanG)
Round 22 - 23 (Jenova)
Round 24 - 28 (CT HC)
Round 31 (DLR)
|
|
|
28 Jun 2009, 06:43
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
i think most people (including me) attack people who are smaller to try and increase the chance of landing and getting easier roids.
|
|
|
29 Jun 2009, 01:26
|
#68
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
amen
|
looks like you can't hide prod whilst roiding newbies anymore, sux to be you.
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
29 Jun 2009, 01:36
|
#69
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefcn
i think most people (including me) attack people who are smaller to try and increase the chance of landing and getting easier roids.
|
Yes, and big planets often get big by attacking small planets as they are almost definitely going to get through. This makes small planets "good" targets, and they end up getting bashed. Elviz hasn't won 4 rounds by attacking big planets man.
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
29 Jun 2009, 03:00
|
#70
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
3 fleeting on nub targets ftw!
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
29 Jun 2009, 17:11
|
#71
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster
Intuitively, think of it as "ship orders start off as counting towards value the same as resources, and they increase until they end up counting the same as complete ships".
|
I just spent ~3 mil res and dropped ~15-20k value, which shouldn't happen according to your explanation.
|
|
|
29 Jun 2009, 17:26
|
#72
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Wasn't there some talk of value being added according to the progress of the production....... starting at 0 when the order is first placed and steadily increasing towards 100% as the ships approach completion?
Although it would have made more sense to start at the value of the resources rather than at 0.
<Edit> Hmmm..... perhaps I should have read the quote from Appoco that you included in your post. In any event, you're right - it's not working that way.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
29 Jun 2009, 20:09
|
#73
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 25
|
Re: Round 32 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wouter
Everyone starts the same, why disable the players that actually put more time in then the "noobs"? You are punishing your dedicated players to satisfy people that actually dont give a crap? Come on this is the most retarded rule ever.. sadly enough i didnt hear about this rule BEFORE someone paid a credit for me.
|
That seems a bit presumptious? How can you be sure those noobs don't give a crap just because they don't voice their opinions as loudly as the "top tier" players here?
Maybe they just get discouraged more and more by being farmed over and over by the players that are dedicate to roid them dry?
Maybe this rule will help them by getting some inc off them and making their landings (if they manage to prevail against the def, which - granted - is up for discussion) more joyful events?
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:15.
| |