|
|
15 Jul 2016, 18:37
|
#451
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 168
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I think this is more or less the truth of the current situation in PA.
Also with the new defence fleet, allie "deals" like 3x3x3(3 planets, 3waves, 3 fleets per wave) makes it very easy to controll the income to a level you can cover every night without having all your members waking up tired for work/school/family life the next day.
|
Actually agree.
Remove prelaunch for attack, prelaunch def +3.
Remove ally fleet.
|
|
|
15 Jul 2016, 23:49
|
#452
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
You lot seem to whine about any change in the game.
Galaxy Fund. Wee wee it's being abused.
Defensive Stats? Wee wee it's too forted can barely land.
Ok then Offensive stats! Wee wee players abusing XP. CT and Ultores obviously has a deal to farm each other.
Alliance Fleets to help you sleep! Wee wee :-( I can't land, even though I use this feature myself.
I want to be involved in this game still so I'll play a defence planet. Wee wee :'( it's cheating and abusing the system. Close them pls.
I'm bored so I'll try something new and one ship defend. Wee wee, it's being abused because he's not attacking and his galaxy mates are obviously cheating because they're initiating when they get roided down to 50 roids.
And not to mention that whenever an alliance wins, you lot discount that as a win and find multiple reasons as to why they don't deserve it.
Whine whine, wee wee. The degree of patheticism is just laughable.
Let's all just stick to the 2001 way of playing. Launch, scan, calc, recall and REPEAT. Because new strategies and ways of playing isn't welcome as the forum police says so.
|
This is a pretty underrated post, but it only mentions the symptoms instead of explaining underlying problem.
All alliances have gradually become better at using the stats to their advantage and allowing planets build the best possible ships for their race. I would argue that attention to this detail has been the primary reason alliances like eX, ult and Asc could dominated during their best rounds.
Scanning around, I see holes in every top planets fleet, something that only makes sense in an alliance that have made a plan to deal with this. Thus a side effect of these holes has been the need to limit the possible incoming on a grander scale than usual, leading to nearly every alliance having some sort of political deal with each other. In effect, the biggest planets have become easier to roid on paper, but harder to roid in (game)reality.
This increased specialization can also be used to explain why some alliances go down 30%+ size in a day, since once the incoming is truly overwhelming, even a single small attacking fleet is impossible for most members to stop. That leads to increased unhappiness, and bad morale among members can create a negative spiral in even the best PA alliances.
On the flip side, the alliances who can navigate the politics end up with massive attack fleets, as seen in this round. I can't remember a round where 4 alliances had this kind of roid average, anything over 1500 average is usually unsustainable. A round of 3/3/3 agreements have made that possible, but we need to ask ourselves if that's the sort of rounds we want in the future? From an alliance point of view such agreements make perfect sense, but the same can in principle be said about napping the top8 alliances.
We had 29 active planets lose less than 100 roids this round as per KIA. Ask yourself if this would be possible in a true war game, and if we want this to become the norm. I wouldn't even call the stats significantly defensive..
Alliances declaring war seem like a political threat tool more than a mechanism used to make war worth it. The idea is good, but the community isn't using it in the intended way. As it stands, it might as well be removed.
RE: 3:4
On rare occasions a galaxy is been able to develop and execute an effective strategy, usually accomplishing whatever goal they set. This round is one of those occasions, and really should be applauded
As for my repeated attacks on them, the main beneficiary of that has clearly been myself. Explain to me how an alliance-less late random sign up could have possibly ended top50 with another tactic? That they also benefit from what I benefit from, is a clever and intentional set up from their side
__________________
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..
|
|
|
16 Jul 2016, 00:10
|
#453
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: r67 who will win
Wars should be more enjoyable. I dont see a reason not to kill prelaunch attack fleets. I expect a shift in LTs to occur that way for most players.
Also more profitable. Score based on xp and value the way they are is not enough. Something should be improved to make the gains from wars increase.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
16 Jul 2016, 00:59
|
#454
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: r67 who will win
I've tried (semi-successfully) to avoid commenting too much on the ruckus that 3:4 caused, as doing so would only prolong the drama. After the word had gotten out, we had nothing more to gain from it. Now that the round is over, here's what we did and didn't do.
We did spread the word by publicly disclosing we were doing 1-ship defense for def XP. It's clear that people knew that we were easy roids. We made no secret of what we were doing, but we did not ask people to hit us. It's a subtle line, but we never crossed it.
We did not talk to the people who end up hitting us. If people chose to hit us primarily in order to support us, rather than primarily for their own gains, they did for reasons of their own (hi again Mac!), not because we asked them. I made sure to never communicate with the people who hit us, even if they were people I knew (hi rasputin!).
We did not prioritize real defense against people we didn't like in order to save our roids for people we did like. We were equal opportunity targets, first come first serve.
We did send real defense against repeat offenders (hi Quaver!) to educate them as to the etiquette of hitting 3:4: send escorts or get cockblocked. We took great pleasure in leaving 1 pod alive, to keep their fleet slot occupied for the return journey. We obviously had the same problem with EMP-only attackers, but we lacked the ships to cover those and did not want to scare off attackers by building very many, so we mostly ignored EMP attackers in favour of more profitable defense missions.
We did not init while we had incs. We were aware people had been closed for this in the past. A couple of times, we covered a random solo incoming for real in order to be able to init. I did so on my very last inc of the round, in fact, which consequently recalled.
I think that about covers it. I can prove none of this, of course. Believe what you will.
All that said, coming back to a question Joseph asked earlier in this thread: it's clear this strategy is not good for the long-term livelihood of the game, and I'm in favour of preventing it from being usable next round. I'm sure we can come up with something clever to reward "real" defense without also rewarding this kind of un-defense.
__________________
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.
Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 16 Jul 2016 at 01:11.
|
|
|
16 Jul 2016, 01:35
|
#455
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: r67 who will win
You make it sound far worse than i looked at it earlier.
"We told people that we were free roids prior to the round, it was not how ever any indirect suggestion that this closed group of people was to roid us before "the word got out"."
"We know people get closed for iniatiating asteroids without the intention to defend it, and still we did it."
"One guy attacked us 99 times, but as he had his own gains for it, _I_ dont belive its cheating even though the rules CLEARLY says otherwise. All the others we noticed who was donating us XP we tried to stop to atleast go out with some of our own dignity and anti cheating stance."
You can be a real pr*ck realy.
You singel handedly has changed the rules of farming in this game, making IMPOSSIBOLE to get closed for farming unless, as you said yourself, "initiate roids while under attack".
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
16 Jul 2016, 03:56
|
#456
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 10
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
You can be a real pr*ck realy.
|
Yeah, you can be, given that outside of whatever delusions you're having he said none of that.
|
|
|
16 Jul 2016, 04:16
|
#457
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: r67 who will win
well, this game have a lot of inteligent guys playing it.. and the pa team is used to see the member base making them improve... the game have changed many many times... and as i record, they dont use to change it middle round, its a short round, there is no reason to stop it, fix it, and keep it going.. sounds like a new round with new changes is better..
so yes, from the start, i was worried about the future of the game, imagine, an entire tag doing it.. thats whats going to happen..
i could expect this from benneh, some1 who play to achieve own merits, using something very bad for the game to win his haters.. after many rounds losing for them.. as he made clear on eorc... hope he can move one now and stop acting like "ohh they crash on me and dont let me win anymore mom, make them stop, please... it hurts my ego win only 4 times, i need more..."
but i could never expect mz doing it too, thats the sad part of it.. he was something like a PA support guy, who dont care about ranks, but about the game... and help benneh doing it, in place of discuss it and fix it pre round with pa team was just sad imho...
now we all wait whoever is in charge to discuss it with PaTeam... hope this ones cares with the game... bcoz thats what matters... keep our game alive, no matter how many hates me, or u, or him or them... just make sure our game keep on going..
see you guys next round...
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
16 Jul 2016, 09:58
|
#458
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
You can be a real pr*ck realy.
|
I care about your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph
but i could never expect mz doing it too, thats the sad part of it.. he was something like a PA support guy, who dont care about ranks, but about the game...
|
I'll do anything to make it up to you.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
16 Jul 2016, 20:07
|
#459
|
Knight of Ni!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oslo Norway
Posts: 298
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Ah sorry....
Your sound like an idiot all the time, please go hide.
|
I will gladly never post at the forum again if you do the same. Then I don't have to read your delusional horseshit
|
|
|
17 Jul 2016, 13:54
|
#460
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: r67 who will win
There's no reason for any alliance to go to war if their members don't have the commitment to follow through on it. Wars can be hugely profitable if you win them, as anyone who sits out and tries to fence can usually be mopped up pretty quickly if you don't mess up your timing.
Players want to have big score planets and big roids but they're not willing to commit the hours to get the absolute best out of the game and decisively win it (which is different to just having score). Which is understandable. And you can see this in the response to Ultores who were committed. Everyone banded against them so there were overwhelming numbers to make them stop.
Planetarion is a fantastic game but the commitment required to get the best from it is unreasonable, and that's where it's flawed. Anyone who is good at the game will have other priorities eventually (you have to be generally capable to succeed) and will probably walk away.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
17 Jul 2016, 14:55
|
#461
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I care about your opinion.
I'll do anything to make it up to you.
|
cant even understand this answer, im that noob..
anyway, think this discussion is over.. cya
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
17 Jul 2016, 15:51
|
#462
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph
cant even understand this answer, im that noob..
anyway, think this discussion is over.. cya
|
I want to see if I can get you to respond one more time.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
17 Jul 2016, 18:21
|
#463
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r67 who will win
Brazil sucks.
|
|
|
18 Jul 2016, 03:01
|
#464
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: r67 who will win
maybe u right Clouds..
but the brazilians pal, this ones PWNS ****ing hard...
=**
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
20 Jul 2016, 17:36
|
#465
|
Knightly Protector
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Avalon
Posts: 590
|
Re: r67 who will win
I was tempted to start a new thread but then decided against it. Read almost everyone's comment on here (yes including the annoying troll) and here is my perspective regarding Benneh+Co's planet win.
First of all congrats Benneh, good job in coming up with a alternative to winning that doesnt involve value play, and congrats to whoever helped you or came up with the idea and made it work.
This game needs alternative to getting planet win that does not involve value play and having multiple escorts. Unfortunately the game has evolved to such a degree that there is no solo planet winner anymore. In order to get planet win you need to have friends, defense planets, pnaps and/or multiple escorts. Its kinda too bad, but that is the nature of the beast.
I do agree that the formula does need to be tweaked since Benneh did win by a huge margin. Does it need to be completely nerfed so this doesnt happen again, no I dont think so. Having alternative options to achieving planet win is good for the game IMO. What the best way to nerf this in order to make it still capable of acquiring planet win, I am not sure but hopefully the admins dont go too drastic as when they did the MC reduction a few rounds ago.
Having said my piece on Benneh+Co's strategy on winning, regarding the accusations on farming and how his win is not legit or something....its been interesting reading. Do I think something nefarious could have gone on with all the multiple attacks, yeah I do. Can it be proven via the current game rules, no I dont think so. There is some highly suspicious activity going on, but at the same time people/alliances could have policed their own members in not attacking 3:4. I saw some interesting news scans.
In any case Benneh+Co got the planet win. As much as some people are sitting on their high horse and preaching at the top of their lungs, we all have skeletons and we all have played this game for so long that none of us are riding a clean horse into battle.
IMO the biggest issue concerning this scenario and other similar scenarios, besides an inactive multihunter team (the impression I am getting), is that the rules before a planet can be closed are ridiculously high. This is a game, not a court of law. Why do the MHs have to go beyond a reasonably doubt before they can close the planet or exact appropriate punishment. I think this is a failing of the community and lots of knee jerk reaction by people (whining) complaining to MHs and admins. The bar before a MH can close a planet for breaking any of the rules needs to be lowered substantially IMO. Yes the chance of abuse can occur, but lets face it with the rules the way they are now there is plenty of questionable behavior that players are doing where there is insufficient evidence for the MHs to do anything. How would that be different if the MH rules are changed and they do not have to have the overwhelming evidence they have now.
MHs have been part of the community for long enough that we should have a bit of trust in their abilities to sort things out. They are not total idiots and know what is what. The amount of evidence they need before closing a planet seems to be ridicules. Having been a MH in the "other" game for a few rounds, I know how thankless of a job being a MH is. Going through the top100 planets regularly and matching up pieced of information and tracking a suspected planets activities is annoying. Also going through reported rule breakers by the community is very annoying when people file frivolous report. How about showing MHs a bit of respect and not going of the deep end more often than not. Not saying MHs dont need to improve what they do and how they do it, but I think there was only like 3 or 4 times where I had people admit to cheating and they didnt raise any complaints or even bother coming to the MH channel. Most of the time people came in trying to get out of their closure and in some cases their planet was reopened and in other cases it wasnt.
Anyways, that's my 8 cents on this. Yeah that is right 8 cents not 2 cents coz my opinion matters more and inflation =D
Might be worthwhile to start a new thread on updating the MH protocols or seeing if the community would prefer lowering the amount of evidence the MHs need before closing a planet, but I have hit my quota limit for posting on PA forums for now
__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.
Est Sularus oth Mithas
My Honour is My Life, My Life is My Honour
|
|
|
20 Jul 2016, 17:55
|
#466
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax
I was tempted to start a new thread but then decided against it. Read almost everyone's comment on here (yes including the annoying troll) and here is my perspective regarding Benneh+Co's planet win.
First of all congrats Benneh, good job in coming up with a alternative to winning that doesnt involve value play, and congrats to whoever helped you or came up with the idea and made it work.
This game needs alternative to getting planet win that does not involve value play and having multiple escorts. Unfortunately the game has evolved to such a degree that there is no solo planet winner anymore. In order to get planet win you need to have friends, defense planets, pnaps and/or multiple escorts. Its kinda too bad, but that is the nature of the beast.
I do agree that the formula does need to be tweaked since Benneh did win by a huge margin. Does it need to be completely nerfed so this doesnt happen again, no I dont think so. Having alternative options to achieving planet win is good for the game IMO. What the best way to nerf this in order to make it still capable of acquiring planet win, I am not sure but hopefully the admins dont go too drastic as when they did the MC reduction a few rounds ago.
Having said my piece on Benneh+Co's strategy on winning, regarding the accusations on farming and how his win is not legit or something....its been interesting reading. Do I think something nefarious could have gone on with all the multiple attacks, yeah I do. Can it be proven via the current game rules, no I dont think so. There is some highly suspicious activity going on, but at the same time people/alliances could have policed their own members in not attacking 3:4. I saw some interesting news scans.
In any case Benneh+Co got the planet win. As much as some people are sitting on their high horse and preaching at the top of their lungs, we all have skeletons and we all have played this game for so long that none of us are riding a clean horse into battle.
IMO the biggest issue concerning this scenario and other similar scenarios, besides an inactive multihunter team (the impression I am getting), is that the rules before a planet can be closed are ridiculously high. This is a game, not a court of law. Why do the MHs have to go beyond a reasonably doubt before they can close the planet or exact appropriate punishment. I think this is a failing of the community and lots of knee jerk reaction by people (whining) complaining to MHs and admins. The bar before a MH can close a planet for breaking any of the rules needs to be lowered substantially IMO. Yes the chance of abuse can occur, but lets face it with the rules the way they are now there is plenty of questionable behavior that players are doing where there is insufficient evidence for the MHs to do anything. How would that be different if the MH rules are changed and they do not have to have the overwhelming evidence they have now.
MHs have been part of the community for long enough that we should have a bit of trust in their abilities to sort things out. They are not total idiots and know what is what. The amount of evidence they need before closing a planet seems to be ridicules. Having been a MH in the "other" game for a few rounds, I know how thankless of a job being a MH is. Going through the top100 planets regularly and matching up pieced of information and tracking a suspected planets activities is annoying. Also going through reported rule breakers by the community is very annoying when people file frivolous report. How about showing MHs a bit of respect and not going of the deep end more often than not. Not saying MHs dont need to improve what they do and how they do it, but I think there was only like 3 or 4 times where I had people admit to cheating and they didnt raise any complaints or even bother coming to the MH channel. Most of the time people came in trying to get out of their closure and in some cases their planet was reopened and in other cases it wasnt.
Anyways, that's my 8 cents on this. Yeah that is right 8 cents not 2 cents coz my opinion matters more and inflation =D
Might be worthwhile to start a new thread on updating the MH protocols or seeing if the community would prefer lowering the amount of evidence the MHs need before closing a planet, but I have hit my quota limit for posting on PA forums for now
|
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...13&postcount=2
Yes, "alliances" _DID_ police their members/people to dont join the "cheating".
The problem was all this "others/none taggers" or prior BP buddies of Benneh who stood for 1/3 of the inc(score).
"We did spread the word by publicly disclosing we were doing 1-ship defense for def XP. It's clear that people knew that we were easy roids. We made no secret of what we were doing."
They told their public that they were free roids, and they were initiating roids to give away.
"I made sure to never communicate with the people who hit us, even if they were people I knew (hi rasputin!)."
They knew they were crossing a line, and even ignored to speak to people who hit em because that could qualify for cheating/farming.
"We did send real defense against repeat offenders (hi Quaver!) to educate them as to the etiquette of hitting 3:4: send escorts or get cockblocked."
Somehow this did not apply for Golan, who earlier in this thread claimed he attacked 3:4 to support their strategy.
"We did not init while we had incs. We were aware people had been closed for this in the past."
Why on earth would initiating roids while under incs qualify for getting closed if the evidence burden is so high?
----
Myself has considered doing a salvage strategy for next round.
Im gonna find a random zik planet, perhaps a friend of mine, and keep building ships for him to steal(while i try go for roids ofc), meanwhile i try go for MC/XP win. Depending on stats this might be doable, and im gonna let my public know what im doing.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
20 Jul 2016, 18:29
|
#467
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: r67 who will win
Still twisting people's words, I see. Hope it makes you happy.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
20 Jul 2016, 18:35
|
#468
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Still twisting people's words, I see. Hope it makes you happy.
|
Im quoting you.
Its what you said isnt it?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
21 Jul 2016, 14:55
|
#469
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...13&postcount=2
Yes, "alliances" _DID_ police their members/people to dont join the "cheating".
The problem was all this "others/none taggers" or prior BP buddies of Benneh who stood for 1/3 of the inc(score).
"We did spread the word by publicly disclosing we were doing 1-ship defense for def XP. It's clear that people knew that we were easy roids. We made no secret of what we were doing."
They told their public that they were free roids, and they were initiating roids to give away.
"I made sure to never communicate with the people who hit us, even if they were people I knew (hi rasputin!)."
They knew they were crossing a line, and even ignored to speak to people who hit em because that could qualify for cheating/farming.
"We did send real defense against repeat offenders (hi Quaver!) to educate them as to the etiquette of hitting 3:4: send escorts or get cockblocked."
Somehow this did not apply for Golan, who earlier in this thread claimed he attacked 3:4 to support their strategy.
"We did not init while we had incs. We were aware people had been closed for this in the past."
Why on earth would initiating roids while under incs qualify for getting closed if the evidence burden is so high?
----
Myself has considered doing a salvage strategy for next round.
Im gonna find a random zik planet, perhaps a friend of mine, and keep building ships for him to steal(while i try go for roids ofc), meanwhile i try go for MC/XP win. Depending on stats this might be doable, and im gonna let my public know what im doing.
|
I'm really not sure if you are just incapable of reading and understanding, or purely trolling.
1) 272/1048 = 26% fleets from untagged. Out of those 272, 99 were mine and 40 were from planets that joined an alliance later (Likely late starters, makes a ton of sense that they would attack 3:4 the first few nights). That leaves just 140 fleets from these "main offenders".
If you go one step further, as posted by Bram, except for my planet, the top 5 attackers of 3:4 were from Ultores, CT, BF, Faceless and VGN.
No great horde of untagged planets repeatedly attacked 3:4
The only alliance with a policy not to attack 3:4 was quite obviously Rainbows.
2) Do you often speak to the people roiding you? I sure don't, and it's in no way proof of cheating.
3) Repeat offenders in this context, means planets who violated the etiquette (fancy word for "how things are done"), not planets that attacked repeatedly. For this strategy to give the highest possible output, they needed the xp def ships to die. Thus pure emp fleets and pod fleets (refered to as without "escorts") would sometimes get real def, to discourage these attackers from coming back.
I sent kill ships on all my attacks, so of course it didn't apply to me.
All clear?
__________________
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..
|
|
|
23 Jul 2016, 17:20
|
#470
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: r67 who will win
Out of interest, has anyone suggested a defence xp formula based on the defence fleet surviving?
__________________
Krypton
Just a P3nguin
|
|
|
23 Jul 2016, 18:50
|
#471
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Out of interest, has anyone suggested a defence xp formula based on the defence fleet surviving?
|
It has to be based on ships amount killed/frozen if anything
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
23 Jul 2016, 21:28
|
#472
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: r67 who will win
Some suggestions I've seen:
1) Awarding def XP only if cap was prevented
2) Awarding def XP only if X% of the attacking fleet is killed/stolen (or Y% frozen)
3) Awarding def XP only for def fleets that are at least X% of the value of the average attack fleet
4) MCs no longer boost def XP
None of them are perfect:
1) Crashes don't give def XP
2) Fake attacks don't give def XP
3a) Very small zero-loss fleets could be excluded
3b) You could send totally the wrong ships and still get def XP
4) Not enough to stop people from getting an easy top 20 planet
__________________
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.
|
|
|
28 Jul 2016, 21:55
|
#473
|
idle
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 968
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Some suggestions I've seen:
1) Awarding def XP only if cap was prevented
2) Awarding def XP only if X% of the attacking fleet is killed/stolen (or Y% frozen)
3) Awarding def XP only for def fleets that are at least X% of the value of the average attack fleet
4) MCs no longer boost def XP
None of them are perfect:
1) Crashes don't give def XP
2) Fake attacks don't give def XP
3a) Very small zero-loss fleets could be excluded
3b) You could send totally the wrong ships and still get def XP
4) Not enough to stop people from getting an easy top 20 planet
|
why not remove defence xp alltogether ?
aren't we all complaining about naptarion and the game beeing hardly focussed on attacking anymore !?
why honour defence with xp, when the honour should be to keep roids and value?
__________________
m0rph3us formerly known as Bugz
"Itīs not about how hard u hit, its about how hard u can get hit and still keep moving forward! How much u can take and still move forward!"
|
|
|
29 Jul 2016, 00:19
|
#474
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: r67 who will win
keep roids means honour who helps u on defence..
dunno how they will fix this situation.. but i hope they come with something really nice..
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
29 Jul 2016, 05:46
|
#475
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
why not remove defence xp alltogether ?
aren't we all complaining about naptarion and the game beeing hardly focussed on attacking anymore !?
why honour defence with xp, when the honour should be to keep roids and value?
|
Because the whole crux of what makes the game enjoyable to those who play is the diversity in how you play. It's about finding balance, it needs to stop being about cutting things from the game that don't fit the way YOU play. If you want to go down your route I'm sure the community can come up will equally valid arguments to cut attacking from the game.
Attacking is a non reactive, dull and far more sim process than defence, defence requires a player to actively and reactively decipher, calculate and send ships which counter to a specific target within a specific period of time against someone who might have chucked 1000 do pods in a fleet and launched them without a second thought of calculating what they were doing. Defence should be more rewarded for the time/effort taken over attacking really.
|
|
|
29 Jul 2016, 08:28
|
#476
|
idle
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 968
|
Re: r67 who will win
Kaiba you sound Like a bitter old man in all your posts.
Take a chill pill. I never said to remove defence, i was just asking what happens if u remove the XP for defence
And tbh <I> like the defensive aspect oft the game, just <I> dont like rounds where you war the mining page or sent 1 ship def fleets and win it
__________________
m0rph3us formerly known as Bugz
"Itīs not about how hard u hit, its about how hard u can get hit and still keep moving forward! How much u can take and still move forward!"
|
|
|
29 Jul 2016, 09:31
|
#477
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r67 who will win
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
Kaiba you sound Like a bitter old man in all your posts.
Take a chill pill. I never said to remove defence, i was just asking what happens if u remove the XP for defence
And tbh <I> like the defensive aspect oft the game, just <I> dont like rounds where you war the mining page or sent 1 ship def fleets and win it
|
Removing the incentive to do it removes the will to do it.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:45.
| |