possible way to combat piggying

[mathematician]

Only the fleet with the highest value takes part in combat.
Maybe both for attackers AND defenders.

So if there are multiple fleets landing, the combat is only the strongest attack fleet vs. the strongest defence fleet

[Ultimate Newbie]

i'm not sure that is a great idea - it means that the top planets will be able to land without sufficient opposition as sending defence from multiple planets is a waste of time.

Furthermore, defender 1 could have 1 mil score, whilst defender 2 could have 800k score, but defender 2 sent 5x the fleetscore of defender 1; but it wouldnt partake in combat which seems a bit counter-intuative.

Plus, i imagine that what you'll see top planets doing is attacking and cross-defending with eachtoher, so that two top alliance players would attack different targets, and send (useless, whether high value or other) defence to the target of hte other top player, and thus have afree ride every time they launch. Its not even farming, either.

Thus, i cant see that being a good solution at all.

However, for attacking, the largest attacker (whether by score or fleet value) might be a bit more viable; it means whomever commits "more" to the attack gets the roids. But i'm not 100% in agreement with that either; it means that the potentially "smarter" and more nimble fleet looses out entirely to a potentially overkill or bashing or otherwise crap fleet - behaviour which i dont think should be encouraged.

[Phil^]

it gives a whole new dimension to 'red defense'
just out-value the attacker with ships that wont harm the defenders.

Its an idea that just wont work, or will be horrendously abused im afraid.

[Heartless]

Make non-allied, attacking fleets combat each other. This would make piggying non-profitable and defense against piggybackers more easy.

[mathematician]

i meant attack fleet with highest value vs. defence fleet with highest value, planet value or score doesn't matter here.

a more sophisticated algorithm would be:
- sort attacking and defending fleets by value
- move first attacking fleet and first defending fleet to combat arena
- if attacking value (in arena) > defending value (in arena) move next defending fleet to combat arena
- if attacking value (in arena) < defending value (in arena) move next attacking fleet to combat arena
- if there are no more attacking fleets or no more defending fleets left, then combat takes place. the remaining fleets don't participate in combat.

there is still the problem with "red defense". this can be solved by sorting fleets by launch time, not by value. so the first attacker is guaranteed to take part in combat (if he/she doesn't recall).

[viC]

That sounds excellent!

I think so much more can be fixed by hardcoding even more things into the game!!

I envision a planetarion with the following hardcoded:

Everybody has only 2 fleets: 1 for attacking 1 for defence. Every night the ticker randomizes all the fleets and launches everything: the player has no say in this, his attack fleet is launched at a valid target and his defence fleet is launched at an ally which has been chosen as a target.

Then in the morning once attacks have landed the ticker automatically chooses which ships to build [based on losses and on the target selected for that night] and produces them, it also performs the construction/research.

"ooooh" you say, "but what does the player do then?". Fear not, the AI required to select humorous Planet/Ruler and fleet names would take too much work, and posting ridiculous suggestions on the boards would simply take too much effort from the already swamped PATeam.

In conclusion: hardcoding sucks, don't make the attack/defence/alliance systems a hardcoded part of the game. Thanks.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by mathematician

Only the fleet with the highest value takes part in combat.
Maybe both for attackers AND defenders.

So if there are multiple fleets landing, the combat is only the strongest attack fleet vs. the strongest defence fleet

Why is piggying a bad thing? Who decides who is piggying who? This issue cannot be resolved. Sorry about the bold

[Chika]

Originally Posted by viC

That sounds excellent!

I think so much more can be fixed by hardcoding even more things into the game!!

I envision a planetarion with the following hardcoded:

Everybody has only 2 fleets: 1 for attacking 1 for defence. Every night the ticker randomizes all the fleets and launches everything: the player has no say in this, his attack fleet is launched at a valid target and his defence fleet is launched at an ally which has been chosen as a target.

Then in the morning once attacks have landed the ticker automatically chooses which ships to build [based on losses and on the target selected for that night] and produces them, it also performs the construction/research.

"ooooh" you say, "but what does the player do then?". Fear not, the AI required to select humorous Planet/Ruler and fleet names would take too much work, and posting ridiculous suggestions on the boards would simply take too much effort from the already swamped PATeam.

In conclusion: hardcoding sucks, don't make the attack/defence/alliance systems a hardcoded part of the game. Thanks.

I agree. A suggestion like the one put forth in this thread, would only follow along the same lines as every other recent game feature that has promoted inactivity and lack of skill.

[mathematician]

Originally Posted by viC

In conclusion: hardcoding sucks, don't make the attack/defence/alliance systems a hardcoded part of the game. Thanks.

So, drop everything which is hardcoded. alliance limit, bash limit. Drop even the rules for support planets, multiing and farming.
Let PA be a game of cheaters, farmers, bashers, exploiters.

Every game has rules to make it fair and balanced. Piggying is considered "unfair" (gaining an advantage from others' work).
The suggestion I made is against piggying and favors more even combats.

[mathematician]

Originally Posted by Chika

I agree. A suggestion like the one put forth in this thread, would only follow along the same lines as every other recent game feature that has promoted inactivity and lack of skill.

well, do we want PA as a game for hardcore cracks only (skill and/or 24/7 activity), or do we want less skillful, less active players have fun in PA, too?

[Chika]

Originally Posted by mathematician

well, do we want PA as a game for hardcore cracks only (skill and/or 24/7 activity), or do we want less skillful, less active players have fun in PA, too?

I am all for a system that supports less active players to have fun. Hell, we have that system now. I log on 1 time a day normally, two times if i launched an attack.
I am having fun. Hard-coding, in historic reference, for this game we call PA has been implemented horribly, and 9 times out of 10 it is nowhere near what the community asked for, and when it is, the community finds some way to exploit it horribly, thus making it bad for the game and back to square 1. I think generally people are looking for more solid suggestions that are more focused on "enhancing" game play. Not taking away from it.

[viC]

Originally Posted by mathematician

So, drop everything which is hardcoded. alliance limit, bash limit. Drop even the rules for support planets, multiing and farming.

Agreed. Multying is the only one that can remain since it is in the EULA that each player can have only one account. That is reasonable.

Support planets and farming are not in-game issues. As despicable as farming is it is a problem from the social aspect of PA and one that, in my opinion, should have been solved by that. Additionally farming rules were not hardcoded into the game [bashing rules were and that is a different issue]. Support planets were also not hardcoded in, mainly due to the impossibility of it, and we've all seen how ambiguous the rule is and that it can't really be implemented.

I for one am against the alliance limits [and against every aspect of alliances being hardcoded] Alliances again are a social aspect of the game, they should not be treated as part of the game mechanics.

I'm not arguing for or against any of those points right now. Thats a huge issue, and even though I disagree with how a lot of them were implemented, there are more pressing issues that need to be solved. So lets stay on track and tackle the gist of this thread. The main issue being the absurdity of your suggestion.

Furthermore trying to put piggying and multying on the same level is just absurd.
Like your original suggestion.
I'm starting to see a pattern here!

Originally Posted by mathematician

Every game has rules to make it fair and balanced. Piggying is considered "unfair" (gaining an advantage from others' work).
The suggestion I made is against piggying and favors more even combats.

Hi. What? No.

How exactly is piggying "unfair"? What defines piggying? How can you choose which attacker is legit and which is a piggy? What about teaming-up on a target?

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you're writing this thread because you got piggied last night. Maybe the night before as well. Maybe the whole round. This reflects the playerbase of the game, the size of the galaxies, and your inability to pick better targets. I'm sure you've always been the one harmed by the piggies, the other attacker was just there to antagonize you, it really should have been your right-of-roid.

Multiple people attacking the same target is not unfair. If anything, it is tough luck. Perhaps if it constantly happens to you, you should pick your targets better.

The suggestion you have doesn't favor more even combat. It favors inefficient combat. Sending in 100k value of ships to roid a planet when 10k value of a different class would work just as well is silly. Claiming that it is better, and thus giving this inefficient fleet the capping advantage is retarded.

I suppose you'd then have more hardcoding implemented in order to stop an extremely efficient red-def situation where a huge value fleet with no pods is launched at the target on purpose, to be sure it gets picked in combat, and doesn't cap.

[Wandows]

Originally Posted by mathematician

So, drop everything which is hardcoded. alliance limit, bash limit. Drop even the rules for support planets, multiing and farming.
Let PA be a game of cheaters, farmers, bashers, exploiters.

Bashing is a valid game tactic. "Exploiting" features is a valid game tactic, since generally exploiting means using features smarter or different than most other players, who then complain over the "unfair" advantage you got because they didn't see that was possible aswell.

Every game has rules to make it fair and balanced.

There is a difference between coding balanced and "fair" features and adding restrictions to cover up a poor design. Restrictions in general are a bad idea because they make playing the game needlessly complex. Imo the game should focus on making unwanted use of features unprofitable rather than completely blocking it (but the latter one is generally used because its easier to implement). Anyone should be able to hit anyone in any way they like, but make a range of efficiency where your planet functions as normal and as soon as you get out of that range simply drop the efficiency / gains with such levels that is simply is not worth the time and effort to do so (unless there really is a good reason, like war or something like that).

Piggying is considered "unfair" (gaining an advantage from others' work). The suggestion I made is against piggying and favors more even combats.

I fail to see why piggying is unfair. I assume each planet attacking took its time to calculate his attack for max gains on the target and is generally pissed off when he finds out others are landing the same tick. Alot of players do not plan to piggy, but simply find themselves in a situation where two or more alliance BC's decided to hit the same target at the same time. And as a result they would now be risking to cap nothing at all depending on how lucky they are with whatever is landing the same tick.

A far better solution would be to have a deeper look into how the combat part of the game works, atm its very attack orientated, with each race basicly having clear holes in their fleet allowing easy access for a few attack fleets. Combined with XP gains this leads to everyone having to attack actively (specially if you can't hold on to decent value) to compete for top ranks. And as a result of this, the universe sees alot of attackers that all try to hit the same fat targets for max gains. Thanks to the wonderfull prelaunch option the less skillfull and active players wanted so badly, they are basicly causing their own problem. As they are most hurt by the double/triple bookings, that can happen because everyone launches at the same time made possible by the prelaunch option.

[viC]

Originally Posted by neg rep

possible way to combat... 9 May 2007 16:07 pro-cheating.

Thats just awesome.
The rep doesn't bother me, but we're having a discussion here, so come along and point out where exactly I have been pro-cheating. Oh thats right, put it in the rep because its a baseless accusation.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by mathematician

So, drop everything which is hardcoded. alliance limit, bash limit. Drop even the rules for support planets, multiing and farming.
Let PA be a game of cheaters, farmers, bashers, exploiters.

Every game has rules to make it fair and balanced. Piggying is considered "unfair" (gaining an advantage from others' work).
The suggestion I made is against piggying and favors more even combats.

Can you please elaborate on WHO is the piggyer? and who is the main attacker ? Since we have shipstats, you dont HAVE to have the biggest fleet to be the main player. its just how it is.