Oh come on...XP formula..

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Banned

Anyone who thinks this formula 'favors' XP players is wrong. The reasons MegaNova outlined above should be sufficient to show this.

it still favors that tacic enough to make that acually playing as the game was ment to play less intresting :/

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I support this and request that my account will be deleted and my credit replaced please.

tbh I bet most people here are hoping they fulfil your request, its getting a tad repeative seeing you declare your quitting every round as things arent suited 100% to your needs. I mean its like every bloody round but everytime the next round comes around you come back. If your going to quit just quit, otherwise stop the idle threats and be constructive instead

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I admit that it hasn't been tested, but I couldn't quite see the need. Testing is as much to allow people to get used to the idea and see how they react as to see if it has any flaws. This is the only problem I see - some people overreacting to a new formula that has less loopholes because they didn't get a chance to do what they could with a calculator.

You dont understand :sigh:
the very VERY worst thing any coder can do is implement something different and not test it at all, regardless of how simple it looks. There are always things you have overlooked - as in this case.
If i didnt know better - i would say you are deliberately ensuring that xp whoring as a tactic remains the best way to win the game - a low activity means of winning which does sod all to help maintain the frailing community as it is.
If i didnt know better i would say you are trying to run the game into the sodding ground.

[Proxi]

Has anyone discussed the impact of:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Harpy init 7 ---> 4

Xans have a hard enough time landing fi as it is, why do this to them aswell?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Phil^

You dont understand :sigh:
the very VERY worst thing any coder can do is implement something different and not test it at all, regardless of how simple it looks. There are always things you have overlooked - as in this case.

Game design != coding.

If i didnt know better - i would say you are deliberately ensuring that xp whoring as a tactic remains the best way to win the game - a low activity means of winning which does sod all to help maintain the frailing community as it is.

But you're wrong. It's literally impossible to win by XP play with this formula. In fact, it's stupidly difficult to even remain top100 as an XP player, as you'd need to continually find other top100 players you could hit. I'll grant that the stats at the moment encourage focused attack fleets like we saw last round, but with this formula it's actually much more beneficial to go for value.

[jerome]

this formula seems great to me, xpwhoring isn't that profitable at all, as it's much much harder to get max xp now as compared to last round. i suppose it's time to start giving a damn about my roids now

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Phil^

it doesnt. It leaves it pretty much the same as last round in terms of suicide or not. ( and again stats with terran as insanely armoured )
the beta one did though , the formula which was accepted as being "pretty good" by most

needless to say that simply slapping a new formula in without any kind of testing whatsoever is irresponsible.

While I don't support the notion of sticking a formula/stats over the players heads and that really you should test a formula on public beta for a 2 or 3 days to see if any morons try and exploit it in some way, Appoco's reasoning sounds ok as to how the formula theoretically works. I'm not a fan of the terran armor either. But I'm no stat expert, nor do I run one of these games.

But like the last round, you won't really know for weeks how the game will play out. No one thought (or at least executed) XP was a killer strategy for whole alliances until the round played out.

XP should be a viable strategy, as long as it is not one where you can do absurd things like suicide to get XP and actually gets less as you go up the ranking, then I don't see where the problem is. The target in my view should not be to kill off XP as a good strategy, but simply to make it more difficult and Appoco's formula does seem to reflect that.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Phil^

You dont understand :sigh:
the very VERY worst thing any coder can do is implement something different and not test it at all, regardless of how simple it looks. There are always things you have overlooked - as in this case.
If i didnt know better - i would say you are deliberately ensuring that xp whoring as a tactic remains the best way to win the game - a low activity means of winning which does sod all to help maintain the frailing community as it is.
If i didnt know better i would say you are trying to run the game into the sodding ground.

I don't see quite why you've decided to make this personal.

I know it should be tested - I'm sure those at TG will have fun testing it, if nothing else. However, speedgames rarely contain enough defence and just about everyone ends up playing for XP anyway. It's far more mental than anything else, as I've previously said.

I know that the other one "seemed" ok. However, as I think I've said in every post, it didn't actually solve anything. It worked on the basis that the majority of attacks that someone who's playing for XP does they lose a lot of ships.

That's wrong. It looked ok, but it was wrong. All that the player needs to do is to donate his resources into the gal / alliance fund, ensuring he doesn't grow, and if he gets too big do a one off crash. Otherwise, with a very little more care, he's back to getting max XP most of the time.

The extra defence factor thing that Rob suggested, allowing a factor of landing on big defence for XP, if anything was going to be used more by those trying to abuse the XP for defence formula to steal a few extra XP and the fact that the person landing would also get more XP.


A good way of taking away the possiblity to win purely by going for XP, is to make the XP for capturing roids related to score. This means that when you get really big in score compared to everyone else, you get less XP. This forces the top players to look to value to sustain them.

I can't quite see which part of that relates to your "ruining the game" comments.
Yes, playing for XP is still viable at the low end, if you hit people 2x bigger than you in both value and score. We're not totally playing for value up and down the rankings. However, there's going to be a certain point where it's definately not becoming viable - certainly not as much as last round - and even before that, you're going to have to be more careful.

I'm still not quite sure if you've read MegaNova's post. Have you got any other people who played for XP last round to compare their previous bonuses to this round? I know it's not a great comparison, but you seem to like figures. Perhaps if you compared what would happen this round with what happened last round instead of just working out this round then it would be more beneficial.

[jrandin]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

He seems to be the only one who's actually compared it to last round and is prepared to come forward and speak about it.
Everyone else seems to be leaping on the bandwagon. A few people have said it sucks and suddenly everyone is up in arms.

I find this a tad bit insulting. A consensus and "jumping on the bandwagon" are two different things. many of the people active here have been playing planetarion for years. Even if, when all things are considered, the changes were better than the alternative, that doesnt change the fact that the vast majority of the posts here have had valid, concise points. I know hardcore gamers can be nitpicky, and you cant cater to every single persons whim, but these people are the backbone of this game, and they are, more or less, united on this situation.

No matter what the little nitpicky details are, the larger fact is, skimming through the IRC chans and forums here, the vast majority are stolidly against XP, or at least the way it can be exploited cheaply, while very few people are proponents of the new "strategies" that are opened up by having XP in the game. What percentage of the population has to register their objections before they are taken into account? If its a matter that will disrupt the game, then fine. But if it only changes the gameplay, in a way that wouldnt be detrimental, then why not just give the people what they want?

Id really hate to see this game go down the tubes, its such a wonderful experience, but this is killing the community of dedicated, active players that make this game what it is. And if they go, the game goes with them.

KhanNS


PS: And BTW, the latest revision may be better than the last round's, but that doesnt mean that the original revision wasnt a better alternative. Oh, and maybe i missed something, but what happened to getting Xp for def fleets? is that still gonna happen or not?

[Phil^]

I firmly believe that this is a terrible decision to make now. I cant see how it could have been made any worse ( bar deleting anyone who doesnt compose their fleets a certain way or something absurd like that )
Are you, appocomaster so sure of this formula that you are prepared to stake your position and reputation on it without testing even remotely to ensure you are right?
I do not intend to make this personal, dont mistake it as such - i think what you are doing is wrong, not that you have suddenly become 'the enemy' all of a sudden

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

That's wrong. It looked ok, but it was wrong. All that the player needs to do is to donate his resources into the gal / alliance fund, ensuring he doesn't grow, and if he gets too big do a one off crash. Otherwise, with a very little more care, he's back to getting max XP most of the time.

Theres nothing stopping them doing this now either - except with the crashing of a fleet they can get xp from it at the same time.

It is a mistake to use this formula, a mistake to introduce it without testing and a collosal mistake to do it without so much as a consultation to people beforehand.
I believe time will prove me right, and that this round will end disasterously, in farce, just like the last one - doing further, irrepairable damage to the game, pateams reputation and the community.

All those saying that its harder to get max xp now - it also affects value players. They dont get as much xp from their attacks either, and value growth - i do not believe is enough to offset the difference between the xp and value parts of score

In the mean time, You should look at rebalancing the stats now - especially for terran , and my replaced credit and account deleted please. I have no intention of playing this round now. future rounds will depend on what i feel like at the time, and right now my motivation is -zip-

[furball]

Having read this thread more carefully than most people, I've come to the conclusion that the change itself is actually pretty good. It's superior to the previous change because it does what it needs to do without any fancy 'survival factor' pretenses. As for not having tested it, well, that's just bad practice by PA Team. Just remember, think back to happier times and all will be well.


Phil^ and Achilles, calm down on the bile. It gets you nowhere and just makes you look like reactionary lunatics.

Kargool, threaten to quit agan and one of the mods will be so overwhelmed by the deja vu that you'll be quitted from the forums. Comprende?

[DukePaul]

furball said what I wanted to say, but he used a lot fewer words. Go Appoco.

[jrandin]

Originally Posted by furball

Kargool, threaten to quit agan and one of the mods will be so overwhelmed by the deja vu that you'll be quitted from the forums. Comprende?

...Telling people you are going to quit, and threatening to quit are 2 totally different things...

And if someone can actually be kicked for changing his/her mind, even a dozen times, then thats a place i dont want to be.

Khan

PS: I know your comment was in jest, but even so...

Oh, and I think the MAIN driving force for this backlash is the players objections to the idea of XP period...i dont want to start another debate on the matter, im just saying that many people feel that its drawbacks are not worth the benefits.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by furball

Phil^ and Achilles, calm down on the bile. It gets you nowhere and just makes you look like reactionary lunatices.

Given that i normally side with pateam on most things and indeed defend them even when they have no intention of defending themselves, it takes something quite extraordinary for me to oppose them like this. That should give you an indication of just how bad i think this change is.
I didn't intend to get personal with appoco, if i have then its as a result of posting while quite quite furious at what i percieve as being disasterous for the game i care so much about - so if i went over the top in your opinion keep that in mind before unfairly comparing me to a reactionary lunatic.

Anyone wanting a refund should be aware its unlikely. Best its going to get is a replacement credit since its a simple matter of opening credits admin, adding one to the planet if they are upgraded and then deleting the planet.
Theres nothing in the eula which prevents pateam from doing that - since strictly speaking the credit hasnt been used if the rounds not started yet.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by jrandin

I find this a tad bit insulting. A consensus and "jumping on the bandwagon" are two different things. many of the people active here have been playing planetarion for years. Even if, when all things are considered, the changes were better than the alternative, that doesnt change the fact that the vast majority of the posts here have had valid, concise points.
I know hardcore gamers can be nitpicky, and you cant cater to every single persons whim, but these people are the backbone of this game, and they are, more or less, united on this situation.

Name a valid one that isn't "he didn't ask us first" or "he didn't test it first".
The only issue that I see is the following:
From what I've gathered from the comaplints given, a lot of people (generally those who haven't actually played for XP) are of the opinion that those that do play for XP lose the majority of their fleet in most attacks.
My opinion is that that's false - I've given examples above as to why I think that's false.

The old formula had a "survival factor" that penalised people for losing ships. This is what everyone holds up to be the reason those playing for XP won't win this round. Again, as I've just said, this doesn't solve all of the problem - not by a long stretch.
The new formula reduces XP the bigger your score compared to those you're attacking.
So, if you're one of the top players, you're not going to get very much XP for hitting anyone.

No matter what the little nitpicky details are, the larger fact is, skimming through the IRC chans and forums here, the vast majority are stolidly against XP, or at least the way it can be exploited cheaply, while very few people are proponents of the new "strategies" that are opened up by having XP in the game.

Are you suggesting removing XP completely?
I know a lot of people aren't happy with XP. I've spoken to quite a few. I'm still waiting for a valid complaint as to how this new formula allows people to win by playing for XP. (see above)

What percentage of the population has to register their objections before they are taken into account? If its a matter that will disrupt the game, then fine. But if it only changes the gameplay, in a way that wouldnt be detrimental, then why not just give the people what they want?

I think that in this case, what they want is flawed. I can only apoligise for leaving it so late to fix it.

Id really hate to see this game go down the tubes, its such a wonderful experience, but this is killing the community of dedicated, active players that make this game what it is. And if they go, the game goes with them.

KhanNS

I hate to say this, but the only reason I can see that currently the community would go is because they've not thought the problem through.
Once a few people have said "look, there's a new XP formula and it sucks", then everyone gets it.
I've had a few people mailing me saying "look, someone has said how awful it is. If this is true, I'm not happy with it". A lot of people aren't sure and trust public opinion, and so those speaking out against it are actually helping to cause panic and distrust in the community.

PS: And BTW, the latest revision may be better than the last round's, but that doesnt mean that the original revision wasnt a better alternative. Oh, and maybe i missed something, but what happened to getting Xp for def fleets? is that still gonna happen or not?

XP for defence is still happening, yes.

[Jackie]

Well done, PA team, especially AFTER everyone bought their credits.

R17 will be as crap as R16 with this unbelievably crappy change!
People that wanted to play Planetarion (The built up game as we knew it some time ago) are now F*cked up by this

Another Great step forward to reducing the playerbase ! :thumbsup:

[Thex]

Last round I was an value Zik player. However at the end I was always getting attacked by XP Terrans sending either a DE fleet or a BS fleet. Zik's had a problem def'ing either of these fleets as 1, the Terrans targetted our ships which were our only defence against them and 2, they were only steal ships which meant they could stop roids from being lost.

The new ship stats may have solved an issue with def'ing against a BS fleet (with Clipper targetting), but I still wonder how a Zik will fair against a DE fleet?

A 600k value terran planet sends a large fleet of DE ships (Pegs, Bargs and Cerbs) at a 3 mil value Zik. Unless the Zik has managed to steal lots of Chims from somewhere he has a real problem defending. Not only that but he can't attack the Terran back! And unless he has a lot of Marauders to "soak" up the fire you can't even steal back until the terran has stopped shooting and stopped stealing roids.

Last round at the end I had real trouble keeping hold of my roids - sure I could attack people, but they were never the ones that attacked me and because I stoke only few roids I didn't grow that fast (lack of decent targets). And then yet another Terran would attack me.

It's called a Bravery factor, well exploiting a hole in Zik ships isn't that brave - it's just a matter of reading the stats properly. Yes you can build a lot of Marauders, but then the Cath's, Xan's and Ziks start eyeing you up, because you have weaknesses in other areas. I'm not sure if ally's will defend more this round - ours did at times, but these stats mean an ally must be fully prepared to cross cover and certain planets to only build certain types of ships. Only the real organised allys will do that (T5 ony? so 200 odd people), meaning that defence will surely be hard to come by again.

I don't believe that this forumla - linked to the stats - will make this round much different to R16 and the way that some players play.

[Zeke]

supply and demand:

if the people that build the demand say: we want cookies
and the people that are responsible for supply go on offering soaps,
then the company will bankrupt.

if they change their production to cookies instead, they'll get rich

simply that can be compared to pa:

pa players want xp either removed or reduced to a point, where it cant be a strategy to not need any alliance/galaxy (community) anymore
pa team: we stay with xp : pa player leave
pa team: we listen to what our players want and reduce xp to the point, when community gets neccessary again to success: pa players stay and pay

FULLSTOP

thats not showing how I am on this formulae btw. I havent tested it out, and it need to be tested out before anyone can say anything about it. Sad that we cant get a 3 day speedy or somewhat in the next days before round starts to test whether this is a good or a bad formulae...

[furball]

Originally Posted by Phil^

I didn't intend to get personal with appoco, if i have then its as a result of posting while quite quite furious at what i percieve as being disasterous for the game i care so much about - so if i went over the top in your opinion keep that in mind before unfairly comparing me to a reactionary lunatic.

I didn't compare you to a reactionary lunatic. I said that the current level of bile "makes you look like a reactionary lunatic". I don't think its unfair at all considering the content of your posts in this thread.

Reasoned argument triumphs every time. Mass flaming (cryptic-style) has its uses but rarely appeals to a higher power, in this case PA-Team.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Zeke

supply and demand:
<snip>
simply that can be compared to pa:

pa players want xp either removed or reduced to a point, where it cant be a strategy to not need any alliance/galaxy (community) anymore
pa team: we stay with xp : pa player leave
pa team: okayokay here you get what u want: pa players stay and pay

FULLSTOP

The problem here is that PA players are stupid. They ask for things which are bad for the game without any real consideration of the consequences. If we pandered to the community then we'd have Death Stars and OMGWTFPWN!!!!!!!11 Battleships.

XP will not be removed. It should not be removed. If I was some sort of unholy dictator running Planetarion then I'd personally ban everyone who asked for it to be removed, because obviously they're lacking the higher-level functions to surpass a monkey with a typewriter.

XP ensured the survival of Planetarion after the death of old-style Planetarion. It acts as an equaliser between those in alliances which can maintain high value, and the players in the alliances which cannot. Remove it and PA would die within two or three rounds.

[jerome]

do any of you morons understand the impossibility of success by purely xpwhoring now? if anything, it's xpwhores who should be whining :/

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by furball

I didn't compare you to a reactionary lunatic. I said that the current level of bile "makes you look like a reactionary lunatic". I don't think its unfair at all considering the content of your posts in this thread.

Reasoned argument triumphs every time. Mass flaming (cryptic-style) has its uses but rarely appeals to a higher power, in this case PA-Team.

look it may appear, but slander it remains.
I have no intention of appealing to any higher power in this thread. Ive made my opinion known - and said i do not want to play this round with these formulae - So can i have my credit back so it is not wasted, given that the round is not running yet and account deleted so that a gal isnt lumped with an inactive at the start.
If anyone else chooses that - then do it for your own reasons , not just because im doing it
Regardless of what some think, its not a " do it my way or i quit " act at all, I never started with an ultimatum and havent finished with one neither.
Its quite clear theres no changing the path this round is set on now, so whats the point in me playing one i know i will not enjoy?

[JonnyBGood]

If anyone wins playing primarily for xp in r17 with this formula they'll have put in more time than the closest value-based planet. Last round everyone complained that this was not the case, xp whores put in less time and got more score. The problem is that everyone didn't realise what their problem with the stats actually was. It wasn't the time factor or the effort or intelligence factor. Most people want it so you have to defend.

PS I wouldn't have gotten half my score playing for xp last round. Literally. Even then I would have had to have been solely hitting other xp whores.

[DukePaul]

Originally Posted by jerome

do any of you morons understand the impossibility of success by purely xpwhoring now? if anything, it's xpwhores who should be whining :/

Yes, it does seems so. However, they do not whine, which I think is a bit interesting.

[lokken]

Really the solution to this problem is simple: test it. Placing a formula over people's heads is no better than kicking out all the betatesters and chuckiNg in your own stats, however good you are, simply because it's bad customer relations.

While i agree with Appoco's new formula and the fact that it will make pure xp play very very tough, I don't see the point of sowing mistrust by simply discounting a beta and putting in an untested formula.

[jrandin]

Appoco, unless it will unbalance the game or break it, then its just a matter of opinion. you say that your option is better. others with a different outlook/priorities may think otherwise.

If you need proof to change your mind, regardless of how many people object, people that you rely on for the continued existance of PA, then thats fine. We need more skeptics in this world. We need more people that say "wheres the proof?"

Just dont be shocked if and when it turns out that customer relations trump the facts.

Khan

PS: I know that can be construed as rather...whats the word...plebian? An average schmuck disregarding logic over his personal opinion? Maybe i am. all i know is, I played the early rounds, and i played this round, and the only thing that didnt make it as much of an enjoyable experience was the dynamics of XP and the people who use it. Please, just think about it. the damage to the game by a exodus of players would outweigh the possible damage done by tweaking a few stats.

And dont blame this backlash on a few noisy dissenters and their mindless followers. Many of us came to these conclusions on our own.

[jrandin]

Originally Posted by furball

The problem here is that PA players are stupid. They ask for things which are bad for the game without any real consideration of the consequences. If we pandered to the community then we'd have Death Stars and OMGWTFPWN!!!!!!!11 Battleships.

XP will not be removed. It should not be removed. If I was some sort of unholy dictator running Planetarion then I'd personally ban everyone who asked for it to be removed, because obviously they're lacking the higher-level functions to surpass a monkey with a typewriter.

XP ensured the survival of Planetarion after the death of old-style Planetarion. It acts as an equaliser between those in alliances which can maintain high value, and the players in the alliances which cannot. Remove it and PA would die within two or three rounds.

Ok, and who decides who is right and who is wrong? If the staff and a small minority is right, and we are wrong simply by disagreeing, than this is a community i do not want to be a part of. Call me an idiot, fine. But with your non-bending attitude, not giving an inch to your fellow player, disregarding anyone that things differently from you as stupid...well, friend, you are doing more damage to this game than a legion of braindead players

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by jrandin

Ok, and who decides who is right and who is wrong? If the staff and a small minority is right, and we are wrong simply by disagreeing, than this is a community i do not want to be a part of. Call me an idiot, fine. But with your non-bending attitude, not giving an inch to your fellow player, disregarding anyone that things differently from you as stupid...well, friend, you are doing more damage to this game than a legion of braindead players

The holy triumvirate of logic, reason and rationality.

[Treveler]

Appocomaster do you want xp to be:

1) A vital strategy for winning or
2) do you intend for it to be a "avoid quitting when bashing your fleet" feature?

You have to decide what game you want to sell as you cant sell them both. This will be the first round I dont play since r3 as this just isnt the game I want to play anymore and I want to know what you plan for the future to figure out if I need to look for a different game that gives me what I want.

[jrandin]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The holy triumvirate of logic, reason and rationality.

Thats fine. And in a few rounds, the new triumvirate can be you, and the 2 players that are left.

Many despots have said the same thing. Your pic is very apt.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Appocomaster do you want xp to be:

1) A vital strategy for winning or
2) do you intend for it to be a "avoid quitting when bashing your fleet" feature?

You have to decide what game you want to sell as you cant sell them both. This will be the first round I dont play since r3 as this just isnt the game I want to play anymore and I want to know what you plan for the future to figure out if I need to look for a different game that gives me what I want.

SDGBHIO[SEGADHIO[GSWBGIO[SNO[GIIO[SGIOPSDGOPS'PDGS

please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. do you not understand that #1 isn't true whatsoever? so by the logic of deduction, would it not then be #2 and therefore, sort out your "TROUBLE" per se

VALUE IS STRONGER, STOP WHINING. YOU'VE GOT NOWT TO WORRY ABOUT.

[Treveler]

No offence kiddo but your drivel isnt what I`m looking for. I asked Appoco directly and you just isnt it.

[furball]

Originally Posted by jrandin

Ok, and who decides who is right and who is wrong? If the staff and a small minority is right, and we are wrong simply by disagreeing, than this is a community i do not want to be a part of.

In my time playing PA I've looked at the game in a few different ways.

First, I was a peon back in Rounds 3/4. I focused on my own planet and didn't give much for the rest of the game. I looked at my own tree.

I then started using the forums and began to understand the game mechanics. This was in Round 5 and I was at this stage until my first retirement in Round 10. I was able to see the trees surrounding my tree, and knew that I was in a forest that contained many more trees.

When I returned in Round 12, I was soon an alliance officer (DC). I influenced the game for about 40 people. It's shouldering this responsibility that opens your eyes to a lot of the game. Some officers can't, but the best officers can see their forest for the first time.

At the end of Round 13 I was made an alliance HC. I controlled the game of 60 people. I began to understand that every action that you take has a corresponding reaction, whether for a single planet or alliance or upon the game itself. Continuing the analogy, I realised that there were many forests.

By the time I retired from the game at the end of Round 16, I'd taken many actions that changed the games of those 60 people in my alliance and influenced the games of a few hundred more. It was in Round 16 that I first argued for a change that didn't benefit my alliance. Instead, the change would benefit the community. At this point I would like to think that I could see most of the forests.


What I'm trying to say is that many people don't understand - or just can't see the effects that their choices or preferences have on other people. If we could run PA as a democracy, that would be great. However, we've seen that it's just not realistic to do so. What I'm in favour of is helping to teach players how to see more than their own interests. I tried to do it with my own alliance members, interjecting my own opinions and ideas and trying to show that proposals such as getting rid of XP are a bad idea. Was I personally successful? Only time will tell.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by jrandin

Thats fine. And in a few rounds, the new triumvirate can be you, and the 2 players that are left.

Many despots have said the same thing. Your pic is very apt.

It has been explained very carefully why this formula last round would have left maybe 5-10 xp planets in the top 100. Trust me the only way an xp player can win this round is if he never sleeps, gets defence off value planets when he needs it and is insanely lucky. Or if nobody bothers going for value, but that's somewhat mindnumbingly irrelevant.

[jrandin]

If you dont like what someone is writing, then dont read it


And as a general comment, to me, this isnt about a formula anymore. its about concern towards the thoughts and feelings of your customers.

Bash all you want. I am a moron, after all

[Achilles]

People are forgetting the corresponding drop in score value planets will get. Even though I finished last round 13th on value (I think) I still had 5Million score in XP. This round I won't. All Top Planets had good XP, whether they were value or not. This round, xp players will score less but so will value players. The result will be the same with smaller scores.

The point was made that PDMaster had 6k roids and was gaining huge score towards the end. That is shite. PDMaster got huge chunks of score at the end with 2 XP attacks on rain. He would not have finished Top10 otherwise and that is a fact. I myself gained huge xp score towards the end also. That is what seperated us from the other value players. We won't have that option this round. It is now impossible for any value player to get xp.

There is also the consideration of how the middle of the Universe will play. This is vital to the, rather important, consideration of whether defence will be available. Basically, whether or not people build def ships. And it turns out, like last round, the def ships will just be a score anchor, especially at the start. This alone means they won't exist and this alone makes value play impossible.

To call xp "Bravery Factor" now is utter rubbish. Is it not brave for big planets to fight one another? If a value planet ****s up a landing then he is screwed. This is not true for an xp planet. Why then, is it braver to be an xp player? It's not. XP is a score handout for people who don't want to be too active or who don't want to bother about defence. What with it being hard and keeping you awake and everything.

I have no objection to this though. Include it by all means. But don't give those people a way of getting score for nothing. A private rewards system that value players can never have. It's lame. It's ill-conceived and it will end the same way as last time.

To sum up my point. It is obviously best to play for value at the top. Top value players require defence from the middle of the ranks. In the middle ranking spots it's best to play for XP, hence no def ships. Does no-one else see this?

p.s. On a private note, when I saw jerome's reply (amongst others) on this thread I nearly choked. It's clear what some of these xp players really think Appoco and they are laughing at you mate. Laughing at all us poor value players and they are right. Because we're idiots for bothering to play in a game that doesn't want or value us. While we are trying, they will be sleeping.

[jrandin]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It has been explained very carefully why this formula last round would have left maybe 5-10 xp planets in the top 100. Trust me the only way an xp player can win this round is if he never sleeps, gets defence off value planets when he needs it and is insanely lucky. Or if nobody bothers going for value, but that's somewhat mindnumbingly irrelevant.

But even if XP players cant "win", is it wrong to object to a player with 1/3rd your value and 3x your score? someone who has made nothing but roiders? someone whose value is so small you cant even retaliate back? Not to mention what it does to alliances...i mean, it DOES discourage group tactics, correct? BTW, i didnt mean to make it personal i apologize. I think I will play this round, if nothing else but to see if anything really will change. But that doesnt change the fact that, as a matter of opinion (whether the concept of XP is good/bad/needs to be changed or not, the majority of the people feel negatively about it, and it seems that not enough has been done to appease them)

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Achilles

lol

roids > shit amounts of xp consistely for a round. therefore, value > xp. understand ? also, yes it is brave to attack other big planets, what are you talking about? if you attack similar value and score planets to yourself, you still get 10~ xp per roid, which is just as much as an effort as it is for xpwhores to get. what we'll have now is basically previous "value" rounds, where the highest ranked people will b e those who can hold onto their roids the best. etc etc etc

and no, we aren't laughing at all. why exactly would we laugh when pa is harder now? the only way it'll be easier now is if there were huge amounts of xp players again just farming each other.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Achilles

The point was made that PDMaster had 6k roids and was gaining huge score towards the end. That is shite. PDMaster got huge chunks of score at the end with 2 XP attacks on rain. He would not have finished Top10 otherwise and that is a fact. I myself gained huge xp score towards the end also. That is what seperated us from the other value players. We won't have that option this round. It is now impossible for any value player to get xp.

My memory is generally hazy but I think you're talking complete bollocks here. I remember jackie had one huge landing on rain. pdmaster was a) the same value and b) I don't think he had a big landing anyways.

To sum up my point. It is obviously best to play for value at the top. Top value players require defence from the middle of the ranks. In the middle ranking spots it's best to play for XP, hence no def ships. Does no-one else see this?

I don't think it is. I've been trying to envision how the round will progress in my head and I don't think xp whores can gain enough score anywhere. What basically has to happen is you have be attacking someone with twice your score and twice your value. The only time you'll see these planets is if you start late in the round. It really just needs some kind of testing, even speedgame mass xp-whoring testing

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Phil^

it doesnt. It leaves it pretty much the same as last round in terms of suicide or not. ( and again stats with terran as insanely armoured )
the beta one did though , the formula which was accepted as being "pretty good" by most

needless to say that simply slapping a new formula in without any kind of testing whatsoever is irresponsible.

And as I pointed out PA crew have a vested interest in making this work even if IT KILLS THE GAME.

Now you got people publicly asking you to give back thier credits and delete thier planets, AND still you don't listen. You're going to justify this no matter whats said.

What exactly is your agenda?

You can add me to the list now too.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by JBG

My memory is generally hazy but I think you're talking complete bollocks here. I remember jackie had one huge landing on rain. pdmaster was a) the same value and b) I don't think he had a big landing anyways.

You are wrong. I landed once on rain with Jackie. PDMaster landed twice with Xani.

Originally Posted by jerome`

if you attack similar value and score planets to yourself, you still get 10~ xp per roid

Unlike you to make a nubtard mistake like that. See my first post on page one please. You will see it's 5xp a roid and even that is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by jerome`

and no, we aren't laughing at all. why exactly would we laugh when pa is harder now? the only way it'll be easier now is if there were huge amounts of xp players again just farming each other.

This is exactly what will happen. What's more, I believe you think this too, hence the qualification.

[iceman1545]

As the HC of an alliance whom is not based on XP this is simply a slap in the face why do we even have XP anyway? isnt the game about building a fleet and stomping another planet and forceibly removeing its roids? where does XP play in all this? other than somethin to make it easy for people who actually play the game and defend friends to get angry and leave the game? if you are going to keep XP why even have alliances? the point of alliances is to have a group of friends who will defend you or who you can defend am I right? personally I wish XP as a whole was done away with so the game could be played like it was in the beginning because it is no fun to spend weeks building a fleet and captureing roids to have someone who playes once a week come take it all from you with huge numbers of small ships that they dont even care if they loose, and you wonder why our player base has been reduced to roughly 2-3k people half of whom dont pay for the game because its not worth the money anymore...........



Also if you are gonna keep this XP formula at least make it to where you can retalliate on the incoming XP whore because it makes sense, if not its like saying ethopia or some other tiny practically non existant country could attack england or america all day lang and say well were to small to attack its unfair if you retaliate! thats a load of BS if you get inc from an XP whore you should be able to retaliate...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Achilles

This is exactly what will happen. What's more, I believe you think this too, hence the qualification.

It's a rather strange prospect indeed. However if next round there was only one alliance playing for value they'd win PA comfortably unless the xp-whores formed alliances, in the sense of co-ordinated attacking, to try and take them down. On the other hand if there are two alliances engaged in a massive war the xp way might well triumph again. If value players can start holding onto their roids earlier and for longer they will win.

Originally Posted by iceman1545

personally I wish XP as a whole was done away with so the game could be played like it was in the beginning because it is no fun to spend weeks building a fleet and captureing roids to have someone who playes once a week come take it all from you with huge numbers of small ships that they dont even care if they loose, and you wonder why our player base has been reduced to roughly 2-3k people half of whom dont pay for the game because its not worth the money anymore...........

Post r9.5 PA has seen a more stable playerbase than pre-r10 PA. That said this has little to nothing to do with xp.

[The Real Arfy]

Just something to note - people keep talking about whether or not some decision affects good of the game but when giving facts and figures, MOST of the time we're being told about "oh, a t10 planet did this" or "it won't affect the t100". Try to think outside of the universe page please.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Nobody was consulted about it, and with one week to go until tickstart, a major part of the game has been changed.

As a side note, the fact that this was only visible* to forum readers was completely stupid.

* I can't believe every player of the game reads the announcements, and this wasn't put on the MOTD

You don't post things where everyone can see it if you are hiding what you are doing.
Appocco doesn't have credibilty with me anymore, not that he'll care, but the greater community is speaking out and he's not listening to them now, and NOTICE the last rounds XP whores and one certain BASHING allaince all speaking in favour of this untested change.
Tells you something.
We are wasting our time here.
PA crew has spoken, you don't really have a say.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Post r9.5 PA has seen a more stable playerbase than pre-r10 PA. That said this has little to nothing to do with xp.

Actually I believe its played its fair share in stabilising the playerbase, infact I'll go as far as saying that I know its played its part as ive seen it first hand.

As often happens on this forum issues falling outside the realms of the top 20% of players/alliances gets ignored but pre PAX one of the biggest problems was the rate the lower down players were quitting. If more people including PAteam had looked into why they were leaving in their droves they would have found out it was due largely to the fact they simply couldnt find a foothold in the game or spent all round only to suddenly lose all their acheivments as they got caught out as they werent in a top alliance or galaxy.

Now in the latter rounds suddenly the shrinking player base became an issue for the kind of players whom generally post on the forums and such like. The hardcore players were quitting because the game had too few targets to support the hardcore players and any half decent target was quickly bashed into the ground.

With PAX things like XP have stablised the lower end of the game, kept people hanging around and coming back which inturn has stablised the top of the game somewhat. PA is like a house, you need to ensure good foundations to support the rest of the building else it callapses and PAX features like XP put these foundations in place

[furball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Post r9.5 PA has seen a more stable playerbase than pre-r10 PA. That said this has little to nothing to do with xp.

I disagree. XP has ensured that fewer players give up after crashing their fleet because they still have something to play for. This is very different from pre-r10 PA.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's a rather strange prospect indeed. However if next round there was only one alliance playing for value they'd win PA comfortably unless the xp-whores formed alliances, in the sense of co-ordinated attacking, to try and take them down. On the other hand if there are two alliances engaged in a massive war the xp way might well triumph again. If value players can start holding onto their roids earlier and for longer they will win.

Post r9.5 PA has seen a more stable playerbase than pre-r10 PA. That said this has little to nothing to do with xp.

So in fact after all the rest of what you have to say you make 2 good points. XP isn't helping expand or keep the player base, we the players are doing that. But they don't listen to us when we say XP sucks the big knob.

AND "unless the xp-whores formed alliances" well wtf do you think Ascendency is? Yeah XP is an XPloit and yes an XPloit allaince walked off with last round, and by the posts I read here they intend to do the same thing again, which you admit they still could.

XP doesn't do what it was supposed to do except it does make it possible to do nothing play a little and win the game while others work hard at playing a good round. There aren't any new n00b players getting turned off PA.
But there are a lot of solid long time pa players getting ready to pull the plug and likely a lot more that already did.

Ask the people with 6, 10, or 23 waves how much they love what PA crew has done with XP.

[SteInMetz]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

On the other hand if there are two alliances engaged in a massive war the xp way might well triumph again.

And since when was it very unusual that value alliances battle each other out?
It happens every round, it will happen this round, hence XP will again be very attractive.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by JBG

However if next round there was only one alliance playing for value they'd win PA comfortably unless the xp-whores formed alliances, in the sense of co-ordinated attacking, to try and take them down. On the other hand if there are two alliances engaged in a massive war the xp way might well triumph again. If value players can start holding onto their roids earlier and for longer they will win.

You seriously underestimate how hard it was last round to defend. Even if you think you don't, you do. In fact, it was impossible and a lot of people in 1up had to give up their chance of a high rank halfway through the round when strategies were changed to allow all the def to be pooled where the roids were. That was a bitter pill for many to swallow. Next round I think it will be harder. How do you suggest 1up motivates it's members when none of them believes it's possible? Belief is important, appearances are important. Appoco introduced a change without any consultation or even explanation. That is wrong. It sends the wrong message and it spits in the face of every player who tested the old formula.