Planetarion Forums

voodoo · 7 Mar 2006, 17:11

Given that this round very many people have seen xp and value as two totally different things, like two totally different ways of approaching the game, I think maybe the game itself could use some improvements.So as to reward both xp and value players, given that both are legitimate ways of playing.
I think that players/alliances that went for value/roids this round instead of XP got a hard blow.Could anything be done to give them some credit?(well deserved imho, given that they are the players most commited to the game playing it the "hard way" instead of going for "the easy-fun-I only spend 2-3 hrs/day online" round)
My suggestion would be to "insert" a new page in the "universe" screen, with top100 value planets.Ofcourse i am aware that making changes mid-round isn't the way to go, but then again, it wouldn't be the first time it happens.And furthermore, it would be a valid suggestion for further rounds I think.

<insert further suggestions here>

p.s.yes indeed, I should spend more time reading the forums

Phil^ · 7 Mar 2006, 17:17

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?p=3001946 , post #74

JonnyBGood · 7 Mar 2006, 17:18

Motion proposed to have phil shot...

...seconded...

...and carried. Quick work team!

Phil^ · 7 Mar 2006, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Motion proposed to have phil shot...

...seconded...

...and carried. Quick work team!

in soviet forums, JBG shoots you

furball · 7 Mar 2006, 17:42

In furball's forums, JBG shoots Phil^.

furball agrees. Terrible idea that totally ignores the fact that the value/XP issue has been singularly constrained to this round alone.

ComradeRob · 7 Mar 2006, 17:51

Alliance score should not simply be the aggregate score of its members. Perhaps there should be some 'alliance XP' for keeping roids? A sort of XP for defending, determined by the alliance's ability to hold roids. It would not affect individual planet scores, so XP players could still compete in that arena, but an alliance that defends properly will always win against alliances that do not.

Phil^ · 7 Mar 2006, 17:56

the pattern that is emerging, does not surprise. Those who are against solutions other then stats for xp are those who are directly benefitting from it.

There needs to be a LOT of playtesting for next round for any changes which are done to ensure they are balanced. - this rounds been a sham so far

Banned · 7 Mar 2006, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Alliance score should not simply be the aggregate score of its members. Perhaps there should be some 'alliance XP' for keeping roids? A sort of XP for defending, determined by the alliance's ability to hold roids. It would not affect individual planet scores, so XP players could still compete in that arena, but an alliance that defends properly will always win against alliances that do not.

1 point for each roid every tick for an alliance?

ComradeRob · 7 Mar 2006, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

the pattern that is emerging, does not surprise. Those who are against solutions other then stats for xp are those who are directly benefitting from it.

Nonsense. You might as well say that those who are complaining are those who are suffering from it.

Personally, I've done well under both systems and could do so again if I wanted to - I just think that an XP-based system is more fun.

Phil^ · 7 Mar 2006, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

You might as well say that those who are complaining are those who are suffering from it.

generally, they are

From what i can see, those complaining about it are those who went the traditional - value route.
I cant see a single person who went XP whore complaining that the systems broken although if you can - feel free to point them out to me

ComradeRob · 7 Mar 2006, 18:28

If I didn't think the system was broken, why would I be suggesting changes?

Banned · 7 Mar 2006, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

I cant see a single person who went XP whore complaining that the systems broken although if you can - feel free to point them out to me

The system is broken.

Will you shut up now?

Phil^ · 7 Mar 2006, 18:55

harsh jesterina, no need for that :/

Comraderob, ive seen the alliance xp idea, its interesting and would potentially solve the problem for alliances but it would not solve it for value players wanting to reach #1.
there is no perfect solution which would allow both camps an equally fair shot at winning the same position ( well, it is but it would require an extreme amount of playtesting with no guarantee of it applying to the full round and there just isnt the time for it ) , which is why i came up with the idea of having two seperate rankings.
Some people, like furball and especially jbg , disagree with it. Fair enough - but merely leaving it as a stats change and not fixing the underlying problem is not good enough imo.
Whatever ends up being done - it wont affect this round in the slightest anyway

XP whoring may be fun for you, but it requires value players to be playing as well - for whom it is not fun. There is no real way to dethrone an XP player by those around them in the ranks, yet there is for value players by way of fleetcatches. This to me screams unfairness , even if it doesnt scream it for everyone.
This game isnt meant to be fair for all, granted but attaining an untouchable position should not affect those who the tactic relies on from reaching the same positions.
To make it clear, im not one of them. Currently im down around r500 so im not in a position where i can point at some xp whores and say " they are the reason im not at rank x , i work my ass off with this game and all they need to do is log in every few hours, launch an attack and check for any def. They dont need to worry about losing their fleet because often thats what they are hoping for to keep their value down"
the tactic, that is XP whoring is imo a perversion of what XP was meant to be : a way to soften the blow of losing your fleet so that you dont turn around and quit as a result.
it was never intended to be a means to reach an extremely high rank yet those immediately above and below you are unable to act against you due to the bash limit.

Nadar · 7 Mar 2006, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

generally, they are

From what i can see, those complaining about it are those who went the traditional - value route.
I cant see a single person who went XP whore complaining that the systems broken although if you can - feel free to point them out to me

I enjoy XPwh0ring and I think something needs to be done with it aswell. But not as much as others wants though, just so it can be a competative alternative to valuewh0ring.

So that's 1 more.

ComradeRob · 7 Mar 2006, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

Comraderob, ive seen the alliance xp idea, its interesting and would potentially solve the problem for alliances but it would not solve it for value players wanting to reach #1.

Yes it would. It would eliminate XP-based alliances, which would reduce the amount of attack-oriented fleets in the game. It would give alliances incentives to focus on more defensive fleets, thus increasing the amount of def available, making it easier for value players to keep their roids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

XP whoring may be fun for you, but it requires value players to be playing as well - for whom it is not fun. There is no real way to dethrone an XP player by those around them in the ranks, yet there is for value players by way of fleetcatches. This to me screams unfairness , even if it doesnt scream it for everyone.

But that's the whole point of XP - it can't be taken away. Value can be taken away, but it can also be gained for free in the later stages of the round, simply by sitting on a high roid count and building ships every day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

the tactic, that is XP whoring is imo a perversion of what XP was meant to be : a way to soften the blow of losing your fleet so that you dont turn around and quit as a result.
it was never intended to be a means to reach an extremely high rank yet those immediately above and below you are unable to act against you due to the bash limit.

I've always been dubious about the concept of the bash limit - a more elegant solution could have been found imo. As for the current style of play being a perversion of what XP was meant to be... you may be right and I'm sure you know more about the intentions of PA team when they introduced XP than I do. But I think it has opened up the possibility of doing well in Planetarion without having to be woken up at 4am to send defence, and that's a profoundly good thing. XP has its flaws, but the principle that it should be possible (for an individual) to win a round without requiring a whole cast of supporting players (an alliance) is imo a good one.

I'd compare the planet rankings to something like top goalscorer in a football league. The top goalscorer might not be in the winning team, or even in a particularly good team, but the team who win the league are still the champions.

furball · 7 Mar 2006, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

Some people, like furball and especially jbg , disagree with it. Fair enough - but merely leaving it as a stats change and not fixing the underlying problem is not good enough imo.
Whatever ends up being done - it wont affect this round in the slightest anyway

Correct. Now, for a more useful question: why do I, personally, XP whore?

It's because in spite of my excellent activity, I'm not the most skillful player in-game. I gamble on defence being fake, I oversleep once or twice a round, I screw up. I would love to play a round without crashing my fleet once, but it'll never happen. Since I'm always Cath (and value-whoring as Cath requires mega value), the only recourse after the initial crash is to switch into XP whore mode. And as it happens, I'm a pretty good XP whore when it comes to finding targets on my alliance's attacks that I can land on for a lot of XP. Practice makes perfect, as they say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

XP whoring may be fun for you, but it requires value players to be playing as well - for whom it is not fun. There is no real way to dethrone an XP player by those around them in the ranks, yet there is for value players by way of fleetcatches. This to me screams unfairness , even if it doesnt scream it for everyone.

Let's ignore Terran stats being broken this round.

Now, can you really say the same thing? Evidence has already been shown in other threads that in past rounds, value has been the difference as to who wins the round and who doesn't. An XP whore constantly slips back in the rankings - I failed to land an attack in 3 days and fell from 500th to 700th. A value whore has his roids to build fleet from, all day every day.

It's hard to be an XP whore. You don't hold on to your roids and you find it harder and harder to get targets as the round goes on. A value whore can defend his roids and build new ships to defend his roids. An XP whore can only save up once or twice with the few roids that they have. I had 10 fleets incoming today, fortunatly spread over only 4 waves (5 alliances picked my gal). People love attacking me. Value whores are hard to attack if they have decent fleet composition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

This game isnt meant to be fair for all, granted but attaining an untouchable position should not affect those who the tactic relies on from reaching the same positions.
To make it clear, im not one of them. Currently im down around r500 so im not in a position where i can point at some xp whores and say " they are the reason im not at rank x , i work my ass off with this game and all they need to do is log in every few hours, launch an attack and check for any def. They dont need to worry about losing their fleet because often thats what they are hoping for to keep their value down"
the tactic, that is XP whoring is imo a perversion of what XP was meant to be : a way to soften the blow of losing your fleet so that you dont turn around and quit as a result.

I'm in about 500th too.

Score has two factors in it: Value and XP. Value 'whores' play for one, XP 'whores' play for the other. Each style of play has benefits and disadvantages. Some try to take a middle road and balance the two.

Think of RPGs like Diablo II, WoW, etc. They all offer differing playing styles, why can't we? It doesn't have to be just races.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

it was never intended to be a means to reach an extremely high rank yet those immediately above and below you are unable to act against you due to the bash limit.

So what? The fact that something wasn't anticipated may just point to the intelligence (or lack of) of the PaX developers. Not that I would want to criticise them - all that I'm trying to say is that failure to anticipate doesn't automatically equal XP-whoring being a bad thing. There's probably some logical fallacy for Banned to give this a witty title.

lurchleaf · 9 Mar 2006, 00:57

i scan read the end of the post as its my bedtime so this may already have been said;

would it be sensible to add the alliances value to the universe page under alliances?

Nadar · 9 Mar 2006, 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurchleaf

would it be sensible to add the alliances value to the universe page under alliances?

I don't think so tbh. If you do, you can easily see if they're XPwh0ring etc. Remember value is roids+ships, so it also indicates how powerful they are military-wise.

lurchleaf · 9 Mar 2006, 10:00

yea, but wouldnt you like it if your alli was 3rd, but you knew that your value still pwnd all?

furball · 9 Mar 2006, 10:00

No, because it would show that we sucked at attacking.

Banned · 9 Mar 2006, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadar

I don't think so tbh. If you do, you can easily see if they're XPwh0ring etc. Remember value is roids+ships, so it also indicates how powerful they are military-wise.

ND had more value than EX had last round. Would you say that they had a more powerful military than EXilition?

Cannon_Fodder · 9 Mar 2006, 10:21

It was potentially, shame about the captains of those ships really...

lurchleaf · 9 Mar 2006, 11:17

hehe

at least that came from someone called cannon fodder. he knows he just condemned himself

Nadar · 9 Mar 2006, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

ND had more value than EX had last round. Would you say that they had a more powerful military than EXilition?

If used correctly, yes, but unfortunately(?) it wasn't

lurchleaf · 9 Mar 2006, 12:08

hey, i think all ND's value was their HUUUUUUUUGE amount of roids

Nadar · 9 Mar 2006, 12:10

Roids makes less value than ships.

lurchleaf · 9 Mar 2006, 12:18

aha, you say that, but how many did they have?

JonnyBGood · 9 Mar 2006, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

ND had more value than EX had last round. Would you say that they had a more powerful military than EXilition?

Military power=(combined fleet values+combined resources production).active number of ticks^skill of your MOs.

furball · 9 Mar 2006, 15:08

I guess when one of those is 0, it's pretty much a disaster for that alliance

Although the result for ND in that equation is 1, not 0. Look on the bright side of life, etc.

JonnyBGood · 9 Mar 2006, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

I guess when one of those is 0, it's pretty much a disaster for that alliance

Not to mention mathematics!