View Poll Results: Should structure killers be modified for R32?
|
Yes
|
|
56 |
38.10% |
No
|
|
72 |
48.98% |
I don't care
|
|
19 |
12.93% |
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:56
|
#101
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Erm, so now the vote shows peeps dont want it (even with the not caring peeps its still 50/50) cud we have em changed, many Xan have CR struts instead
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:57
|
#102
|
StarCraft II Pro Wannabe!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Another epic Fail that ruins the game, i swear u guys are tryin to kill this game.
__________________
Round 1-20 Allyless N00b! :P
Round 20-45 support team.
Round 27-31 Orbit HC -Join #orbit.
Round 32 Violent Realm HC - join
#violent_Realm
Round 33-35 P3nguins - Join #p3nguins
Round 35-40 Conspiracy Theory - Join #Conspiracy
Round 41-44 Conspiracy Theory HC
Round 45 xVx Peon
Round 46 Fang Peon
Round 47-69 (Apprime,Conspiracy Theory, Innuendo)
Rounds 69-70 Not Played
Round 71 MAYBE
Upper Your Spirit!
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 18:00
|
#103
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I was under the impression they'd be changed rather than left as-is.
Appocomaster didn't seem to keen on it.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 18:01
|
#104
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
He does. If he wants to change things they'll change. My recommendation is that if after 10% of the playerbase voting it's pretty much split 50/50 one might as well try and mix things up a tiny bit.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 18:01
|
#105
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
May I respectfully suggest that this thread now be moved over to PD?
I suspect that the tone of the discussion is about to descend below the standards that we expect in the Strategy forum.
__________________
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
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 18:22
|
#106
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
He does. If he wants to change things they'll change. My recommendation is that if after 10% of the playerbase voting it's pretty much split 50/50 one might as well try and mix things up a tiny bit.
|
fun to play with the numbers, so 5% of the playerbase at best voted for your proposed SK changes and you think thats enough to change it to that?
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 18:23
|
#107
|
StarCraft II Pro Wannabe!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
So if the community vote no it really means yes i see ur logic?
so if we all voted yes then you would change it to no.
__________________
Round 1-20 Allyless N00b! :P
Round 20-45 support team.
Round 27-31 Orbit HC -Join #orbit.
Round 32 Violent Realm HC - join
#violent_Realm
Round 33-35 P3nguins - Join #p3nguins
Round 35-40 Conspiracy Theory - Join #Conspiracy
Round 41-44 Conspiracy Theory HC
Round 45 xVx Peon
Round 46 Fang Peon
Round 47-69 (Apprime,Conspiracy Theory, Innuendo)
Rounds 69-70 Not Played
Round 71 MAYBE
Upper Your Spirit!
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 18:27
|
#108
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
He does. If he wants to change things they'll change. My recommendation is that if after 10% of the playerbase voting it's pretty much split 50/50 one might as well try and mix things up a tiny bit.
|
However 129 votes is not a bad average of the players of PA. One normally would want in around 250 people having their say to be a representative group of the people in a community. So I feel that this quite fairly is a close capture of what the PA community want.
Please JBG, stop trying to force a change that absolutely is not needed down the throats of people who absolutely don't want it. All you do is alienate the community.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 18:37
|
#109
|
StarCraft II Pro Wannabe!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Ive already had a few ppl say they are not playing this round because of it, like kargool says dont force stuff on the comunity if they dont want it, you are not the majority of pa.
__________________
Round 1-20 Allyless N00b! :P
Round 20-45 support team.
Round 27-31 Orbit HC -Join #orbit.
Round 32 Violent Realm HC - join
#violent_Realm
Round 33-35 P3nguins - Join #p3nguins
Round 35-40 Conspiracy Theory - Join #Conspiracy
Round 41-44 Conspiracy Theory HC
Round 45 xVx Peon
Round 46 Fang Peon
Round 47-69 (Apprime,Conspiracy Theory, Innuendo)
Rounds 69-70 Not Played
Round 71 MAYBE
Upper Your Spirit!
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 19:14
|
#110
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK, South Humberside, Grimsby
Posts: 86
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
i would just like to say when i 1st saw this rounds stats and the sks, i thought they was amazing and i actually said in #beta these are the best stats we had in a long time. thnx for the nice statement about the PA community JBG i feel like a much better person now.. :/ *cough...jerk...cough* maybe in the future u should think before u forum rage it just makes look you arrogant.
__________________
- An alliance which is not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value. - Mein Kampf
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 19:17
|
#111
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I say bring on the round!!!
I'm going TE DE (against Xan SK's) with a smidge of BS (for attacking).
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 20:16
|
#112
|
Planetarion Forum Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I will remind posters on this forum once again, that the strategy forum is for discussion, not abusing one another. If you do not like something that is being done please post reasoned arguments, do not simply sling mud at one another, there are other forums for that type of talk.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10
#strategy
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 20:22
|
#113
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairypalms
it just makes look you arrogant.
|
JBG? Arrogant? No way!
I'm sure he does it on purpose.
Even though I don't agree with the "new" SK's, good job on the stats JBG. Again.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 20:22
|
#114
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Fair enough Monroe.
Here goes my attempt at emulating the above arguments. COMMUNITY ROAR GIVE ME WHAT I WANT I REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY THOSE OTHER PEOPLE WILL DESTROY THE GAME HOLD ON WHILE I LATER ACCUSE SOMEONE ELSE OF THROWING A HISSY FIT OVER NOT GETTING THEIR WAY AFTER I'VE ALREADY SAID I'D QUIT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE BEING DISCUSSED GOING THROUGH.
Seriously though, did nobody else find this amusing?
Edit: Just in case people don't know appoco asked me/overturned my choice and sks next round will be as in the beta currently (he said he'd upload them to the main game later today).
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 20:26
|
#115
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK, South Humberside, Grimsby
Posts: 86
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
i did, but then i have wierd sense of humor :/ also i would like to say good stats this round JBG
__________________
- An alliance which is not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value. - Mein Kampf
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 21:16
|
#116
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 151
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Fair enough Monroe.
Here goes my attempt at emulating the above arguments. COMMUNITY ROAR GIVE ME WHAT I WANT I REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY THOSE OTHER PEOPLE WILL DESTROY THE GAME HOLD ON WHILE I LATER ACCUSE SOMEONE ELSE OF THROWING A HISSY FIT OVER NOT GETTING THEIR WAY AFTER I'VE ALREADY SAID I'D QUIT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE BEING DISCUSSED GOING THROUGH.
Seriously though, did nobody else find this amusing?
Edit: Just in case people don't know appoco asked me/overturned my choice and sks next round will be as in the beta currently (he said he'd upload them to the main game later today).
|
I haven´t been playing with beta stats been on holiday - will there be fi SK in round 32?
What I have seen of the stats so far they look pretty good - well done JBG
BTW can someone pass be a link to the stats plz?
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 21:32
|
#118
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Edit: Just in case people don't know appoco asked me/overturned my choice and sks next round will be as in the beta currently (he said he'd upload them to the main game later today).
|
Thank goodness for that. I do hope that you had time to re-balance the armour & damage ratios accordingly.
BTW - In all the fuss about SKs I almost forgot to congratulate you on simplifying the stats. I'm actually looking forward to the round now.
(Apart from the gaping hole in Xan's anti-Cr that is).
__________________
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
Last edited by ArcChas; 22 Jun 2009 at 21:39.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 22:06
|
#119
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
(Apart from the gaping hole in Xan's anti-Cr that is).
|
xan has anti cr it's just utterly crap
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 22:30
|
#120
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece, Athens
Posts: 18
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
i voted "No" in the poll. I like SKs...they add a new strategy to the game.
I really dont get it...
a)Why would i attack a new player(or random targets) with my SKs? Roids is the only thing i want from him(them). The only ones i would attack with SKs are enemy targets, and every damage i do to them..is a benefit for me and my alliance. So new players quitting just because ppl land their SKs on them is wrong.
b)What is so bad with using SKs? Maybe we should also ban pods...so new players dont lose their roids....what about kill ships??we should ban them too...so that new players dont lose their fleet(which is even harder to replace compared to roids).
SKs add a new strategy to the game. Counter strategies will be found.
And i think it doesnt make sense having an opinion about somethig that u havent even tried. Maybe its a nice change..maybe its not. That's what about the game is...finding new ideas and keeping the gd ones..
__________________
R18: [Myth] 5:6:6 Planet Rank:775 || Galaxy Rank:73 || Alliance Rank: 19
R19: [Myth] 9:10:14 Planet Rank: 620 || Galaxy Rank: 1 || Alliance Rank: 18
R21: |Lost| 18:4:12 Planet Rank: 861 || Galaxy Rank: 13 || Alliance Rank: 19
R28: [Orbit] 3:10:4 Planet Rank: 467 || Galaxy Rank: 40 || Alliance Rank: 15
R29: [NewDawn] 10:6:2 Planet Rank: 232 || Galaxy Rank: 18 || Alliance Rank: 4
R30: [Orbit] 9:2:21 Planet Rank: 617 || Galaxy Rank: 14 || Alliance Rank: 7
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 23:33
|
#121
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
|
No, Asc have the final decision.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 00:59
|
#122
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreCkeRer
i voted "No" in the poll. I like SKs...they add a new strategy to the game.
I really dont get it...
a)Why would i attack a new player(or random targets) with my SKs? Roids is the only thing i want from him(them). The only ones i would attack with SKs are enemy targets, and every damage i do to them..is a benefit for me and my alliance. So new players quitting just because ppl land their SKs on them is wrong.
b)What is so bad with using SKs? Maybe we should also ban pods...so new players dont lose their roids....what about kill ships??we should ban them too...so that new players dont lose their fleet(which is even harder to replace compared to roids).
SKs add a new strategy to the game. Counter strategies will be found.
And i think it doesnt make sense having an opinion about somethig that u havent even tried. Maybe its a nice change..maybe its not. That's what about the game is...finding new ideas and keeping the gd ones..
|
Cool, you just made up the wrong vote earlier, since you by voting no said no to the structurekillers from beta
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 01:12
|
#123
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
A Terran with 50 constructions losing 3 waves with SK will be down to 37 constructions (-13). With his best population setting he'll rebuild the 13 constructions in 65 ticks... ofc if he's attacked again during that period he just can't catch up. A Cath would need more than 100 ticks in the same scenario.
Note that even if the Ter loses only 1 wave (5 cons) he can't rebuild them in 1 day...
Are the races and gov bonus final or can we expect some tweaks taking into account the new SKs ?
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 02:14
|
#124
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Refresh the manual as the sk's have changed.
The race and government bonuses are unchanged from last round.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 05:59
|
#125
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...5_ibnF8trErBCw
Different way to show costs per armor, resistance and damage.
1) EMPShields are the proposed EMPArmor (works same way normal armor does).
2) EMPShield = (100 / (100-EMPRes) ), the value attained is actually the average guns needed to freeze the unit basing on the EMPRes.
3) E/C (EMPShield per Cost).
4) TotalGuns column = (UnitGuns * UnitDamage), thus UnitDamage after this is ignored.
5) All guns are given 1 damage.
6) G/C (Guns per Cost) - Notice all damage ships (and steal), and nearly the same, but now you can include EMP into the flock. However, because EMPShield is a lot lower than Armor and less guns are needed to freeze targets, E/C does look lower.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
Last edited by MrLobster; 23 Jun 2009 at 06:45.
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 06:59
|
#126
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greece, Athens
Posts: 18
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
Cool, you just made up the wrong vote earlier, since you by voting no said no to the structurekillers from beta
|
pffff..i think you are right.. ....i blame monroe (at least one vote doesnt make a difference) :\
__________________
R18: [Myth] 5:6:6 Planet Rank:775 || Galaxy Rank:73 || Alliance Rank: 19
R19: [Myth] 9:10:14 Planet Rank: 620 || Galaxy Rank: 1 || Alliance Rank: 18
R21: |Lost| 18:4:12 Planet Rank: 861 || Galaxy Rank: 13 || Alliance Rank: 19
R28: [Orbit] 3:10:4 Planet Rank: 467 || Galaxy Rank: 40 || Alliance Rank: 15
R29: [NewDawn] 10:6:2 Planet Rank: 232 || Galaxy Rank: 18 || Alliance Rank: 4
R30: [Orbit] 9:2:21 Planet Rank: 617 || Galaxy Rank: 14 || Alliance Rank: 7
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 16:39
|
#127
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervantes
Ive already had a few ppl say they are not playing this round because of it, like kargool says dont force stuff on the comunity if they dont want it, you are not the majority of pa.
|
What kind of person quits a war game because they're scared of being SKed?!
I haven't exactly looked at the stats apart from a couple of looks at the SKs, but what are people going to do with haunts and basilisks?
It's a war game, SKing others gives you an advantage over them. It's good. Unless you're SKing newbies/tiny planets, and there's probably a far better solution for small planets being SKed ( http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...86#post3178286)
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
Last edited by Monroe; 23 Jun 2009 at 18:59.
Reason: Abusive Language
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 17:55
|
#128
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreCkeRer
pffff..i think you are right.. ....i blame monroe (at least one vote doesnt make a difference) :\
|
Make that two, though. ;p
Wonder why there's no option to change/remove your vote.
|
|
|
23 Jun 2009, 18:43
|
#129
|
Alive and kicking
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 220
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
This is really a non-issue. SKs were even more crap than before. If you build them early in the round, you just weaken yourself. As a DC I will cover your attack first if you build them (unless I know you didn't send them). I never build them.
|
|
|
24 Jun 2009, 00:29
|
#130
|
StarCraft II Pro Wannabe!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Kila i didnt say quit so please read properly before commenting, i said not play this round, there is a big difference.
__________________
Round 1-20 Allyless N00b! :P
Round 20-45 support team.
Round 27-31 Orbit HC -Join #orbit.
Round 32 Violent Realm HC - join
#violent_Realm
Round 33-35 P3nguins - Join #p3nguins
Round 35-40 Conspiracy Theory - Join #Conspiracy
Round 41-44 Conspiracy Theory HC
Round 45 xVx Peon
Round 46 Fang Peon
Round 47-69 (Apprime,Conspiracy Theory, Innuendo)
Rounds 69-70 Not Played
Round 71 MAYBE
Upper Your Spirit!
|
|
|
24 Jun 2009, 15:30
|
#131
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Meh, all changes seems to be going in the direction of punishing people even harder for getting roided. As a gal dc I hate that because it forces you to prioritize planets even earlier and makes it harder for those getting roided to come back. Which again will lead to more def whoring, which will lead to a huge gap between the top planets (those who are willing to def whore won't lose structures which is easily a 5% income loss on top of the roids).
I'm very much against punishing big planets for taking one for the team.
__________________
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..
|
|
|
24 Jun 2009, 15:34
|
#132
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Aww, those poor top players, they have such a hard time coping. They really deserve a break, being the selfless heros of the community that they are.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01.
| |