The problem that wasn't solved.

[Nadval]

XP.

Although I, and many others, like the fact you get rewarded for skillful attacks on larger planets, there are one or two flaws/injustices within the xp system. It seems PA has transformed from a game in which the goal is to grow to become the biggest planet, to a game which rewards reckless attacks on people bigger than yourself.

The problem with xp is that you can't lose it. One could currently attack the #1 planet repeatedly and he could lose every ship and roid he has, with 0 value, and still remain a top10 planet. Fair? Skillful? One could suicide their entire fleet, just leaving a reasonably sized attack fleet suitable to attack numerous (larger) planets, and rise to the t100 relatively easily just by gaining easy roids from the lower ranked (yet higher value) players. This, to me, distorts the core aspect of Planetarion.

Would not a more suitable method of measuring skill be to not only reward skillful attacks on larger planets, but to also detract score from players who lose ships/roids (particularly to those smaller than them), or simply by significently lowering the effect xp has on score so that value (and thus high roid/shipcount) is a more effective way of gaining/maintaining high ranks. Or possibly just changing the universe ranking to value, having 'score' as an additional feature to indicate whether a planet has simply been farming newbies or not.

I find it unjust that I can almost no longer attack the #1 planet due to their value being too low and, as i said, i feel this distorts the true objectives PA was originally and traditionally based on. One could argue the t100 no longer reflects the skill of players but merely the ability to take advantage of a flawed scoring system whereby the majority of people's score (at least for the higher ranked people) cannot be lost.

any views?

[Nadval]

BTW sorry if there've been threads of this nature in the past, I barely read PD but skimming through the current boards I couldn't find any just complaints about the current PA, so thought I better make one before people started to think they've got it right

[Kal]

a simple way to do this would be to have - score=XP*value (ofc the XP giving formulae would need some adjusting)

or a more complex and perhaps more balence one would be score=(XP^0.25)*Value

I think the whole XP thing needs to be re looked at at some point - what it is gove out for, how much is given out and ofc how it contributes to score.

[Nitros]

completly agreed with Nadval
just suicide abit and you're top10.. :/

[Nadar]

I just took a look at pilkara to find this: http://www.pilkara.com/rank.php?acti...sort=&orderby=

#2 planet only got ~200k value. That is disturbing. But then again, a sneaky way of winning

[Rc mayhem]

I was just about to start the same thread. It is not right that the highest scored planet has a value which is ranked 1000th+. Its just not right. I have attacked 2 ppl with slightly higher value and score than me the last 2 days and, as well as 150 roids, I have got a huge amount of XP. So much so that I have raised 600 places to 700thish. Thats just stupid. Reduce its effect

[Benneh]

its all im doing, suiciding for XP, im just about to lose half my fleet for 200 roids off someone who has almost triple my value.

[barney]

yea it becoming a little pointless at the moment trying to conserve your fleets/roids. as it gains you NO advantage only means soene can chip away at your score.

even when these peeps launch they if anything hope there is defence, to wipe out there fleet so that there value sinks further so that on their next attack, they are even smaller than the target thus gaining more XP.

this makes a mockery of people who try to play the game in the spirit it is intended, building big fleets attacking skillfully, and defending your roids vigorously.

im hoping something can be done about this MID-ROUND cos the situation is getting rediculous now :/. i like attacking ppl bigger than myself to gain XP, but maybe to tie in the XP to the proportion of your fleet returning home, or to give value a greater contribution to score, tbh i was looking forward to this round soooo much after the long break. I am now looking forwand to the end of the round

sad barney

[barney]

just to proove my point and im hoping nobody takes this down cos i have goiven identifying information, the information is freely avaliable to all anyway.

#1: http://www.sandmans.co.uk/?p=viewplanet&x=1&y=10&z=2
#2 : http://www.sandmans.co.uk/?p=viewplanet&x=4&y=3&z=5
#3 : http://www.sandmans.co.uk/?p=viewplanet&x=15&y=3&z=13

im sure i dont need to carry on to prove my point, anyone can use sandmans and see it for themslevs :/

im sure there are plenty of others out there too, this is just an example but it seams silly that the top planet has a MONSTER score and a value less than many others.

[Goatsemaster]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Although I, and many others, like the fact you get rewarded for skillful attacks on larger planets, there are one or two flaws/injustices within the xp system. It seems PA has transformed from a game in which the goal is to grow to become the biggest planet, to a game which rewards reckless attacks on people bigger than yourself.

Odd, I seem to recall almost all top100 planets having more score from value than XP last round.

The problem with xp is that you can't lose it.

No, that's the point of XP.

One could currently attack the #1 planet repeatedly and he could lose every ship and roid he has, with 0 value, and still remain a top10 planet.

No.

The current #1 planet has 1.7m score, 532k value. 1.7m - 0.5m = 1.2 million (being friendly here) puts him at 19th. If you're referring to 1:10:2, then yes, he'd stay top10 for about a day or two.

Fair? Skillful?

I'd argue that these planets have accomplished something already. Would it be fair to ruin 400 ticks of work entirely because of one fleet loss?

One could suicide their entire fleet, just leaving a reasonably sized attack fleet suitable to attack numerous (larger) planets, and rise to the t100 relatively easily just by gaining easy roids from the lower ranked (yet higher value) players. This, to me, distorts the core aspect of Planetarion.

Then how come this isn't a more popular tactic? Could it be that to build a fleet you need to be able to defend your roids, and to defend your roids you need an alliance, and to get an alliance you need a defense fleet to help your alliance with?

Would not a more suitable method of measuring skill be to not only reward skillful attacks on larger planets, but to also detract score from players who lose ships/roids (particularly to those smaller than them), or simply by significently lowering the effect xp has on score so that value (and thus high roid/shipcount) is a more effective way of gaining/maintaining high ranks. Or possibly just changing the universe ranking to value, having 'score' as an additional feature to indicate whether a planet has simply been farming newbies or not.

Excuse me, but you're proposing to make it more enviable for small planets to hit large ones again? I don't get that. Planets that lose roids, lose 200 score per roid lost. Larger planets naturally have larger amounts of roids, therefore they lose more value.

I find it unjust that I can almost no longer attack the #1 planet due to their value being too low and, as i said, i feel this distorts the true objectives PA was originally and traditionally based on. One could argue the t100 no longer reflects the skill of players but merely the ability to take advantage of a flawed scoring system whereby the majority of people's score (at least for the higher ranked people) cannot be lost.

The fact that your fleet value is too high to attack the number 1 (well, number 2 now) planet is nothing to do with XP, but rather the bash limit.

any views?

From over here, you look like a whiner.

[wakey]

Reading this thread i've noticed a few people who appear to be trying to make out that Value is a measure of skill and score isnt. Infact these people have got it completly the wrong way round.

Value is pretty much just a figure that tell you how many ships and roids a planet has, it doesnt tell you how well they are using these or how well the are actually playing just how much they have been able to hide behind their alliance tag, hide behind their galaxy and hit fairly easy targets. If you have the backup to protect your roids, can find easy targets and can get your ships out of the way when they are in danger then under a value system your going to have a good round without any risk. het ive known people who in this game have gone the whole round without doing a single attack and still get a better ranking than alot of better players simply by playing it safe.

XP on the otherhand gives your ships something more important that actual value, Potential Score. Every ship has a infinate amount of potential score in them. Upon an offensive battle thes ships start to realise their poetntial score, every time you capture a roid a bit of potential score is released to show your acheived something and have used some skill. At this point it really doesnt matter if the ship dies or not because its done its job, if you keep it its a bonus and it gives you more potential score to gain in your next attack than someone who lost them all. Now if you converyt enough of the ships potential score to cover your losses your score will go up and you have acheived something, get it wrong a your value will fall enough to put your score down on what it was.. It simply rewards skill, skill in this game being gaining roids (there are others which arent given xp but i'll mention those in a minutre) not sitting around with a massive fleet scared to hit anyone worthwhile because it ruins your ranking

Now the problem of these people having no low value preventing them being hit isnt a problem with the XP system, its a problem stemming back from about round 3 but which hasnt really been fully noticed until XP became a factor in the game (and made more obvious now with the fact roiding is easier thus xp gain easier). This problem is a regular feature of my 'rants' and is the one that people always find suprised that I'm saying, this being the hard bash limits and to be more precise the removal of them.

The idea that we cant attack the whole universe is a silly one and it lets people get away with certain actions with no repercussions and allows for situations like we have now with XP giving people ranking positions but which you cant do much about directly is wrong. Rather than stop us hitting unsuitable targets, dock us xp for doing so, for hitting good targets give us xp. Change the bash limits from hard to soft limits and find a way of deciding the various softr limit levels thats fair and takes value and score both into account and the XP problem isnt a problem anymore.

[lokken]

In the long term playing for pure XP doesn't pay off - that's because your fleet is decimated and you've got nothing to rebuild it with, so suddenly your means of harvesting mega XP (by capping lots of roids) is gone.

It's still early doors, and roids aren't paying off their income yet. Only one planet was top 100 last round playing for pure XP, and the only reason he was successful was because he had a few mates willing to help increase his fleet power dramatically by defending against him.

[Benneh]

thing is you cant hold onto your roids like last round. Its hell to keep any :/

[jerome]

Top 10 doesn't mean anything right now, all you've shown is an ability to get a few measly roids. Staying there is the challenge.

XP only helps in the later stage, if you truly are whining because some small planets are bigger than yours (whilst knowing that they will inevitably fall off the race sooner or later because of reasons Lokken stated above), then you need to evaluate pa 'gaming' at higher levels in a more detailed manner.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Top 10 doesn't mean anything right now, all you've shown is an ability to get a few measly roids. Staying there is the challenge.

Around this time last round TheRat was similarly placed with a similar lead on XP relative to Value.

I don't recall him doing so well in the end.

[Neferti]

The XP system is not perfect, however now that I've had time to get used to it since round 10, I do think it works better than the old score system. I agree with those who say there should perhaps be some 'bashing' penalty.

[Lei~]

a multiplicator for score would be rewarding everyone tho - those playing for value and those playing for xp and so would give everyone what they want, so i think kal is on the right way.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by wakey

The idea that we cant attack the whole universe is a silly one and it lets people get away with certain actions with no repercussions and allows for situations like we have now with XP giving people ranking positions but which you cant do much about directly is wrong. Rather than stop us hitting unsuitable targets, dock us xp for doing so, for hitting good targets give us xp. Change the bash limits from hard to soft limits and find a way of deciding the various softr limit levels thats fair and takes value and score both into account and the XP problem isnt a problem anymore.

Whilst i see where you are coming from and in principle i agree with letting the 'free market' for score solve problems (being an economist and all), i have to disagree with you here.

In the short term, attacking a much smaller planet than you will result in a reduction of xp - and thus rank. however, by killing said planet's fleet etc, you discourage this player from continuing to play and thus remove roids from the game (which i think you'd agree is detrimental in a number of ways). But this isnt the only problem. By attacking someone considerable smaller than you, the roids you collect are cheaper in terms of ships lost (or gained) - ships with 'potential score' which can then be used to gain a net increase in score if suicided somewhere - and thus not only would said newbie basher gain roids cheaply, but also gain score and rank. Which is bad. You need a longer term view at what that effect would be.

Having said that, i would be in favour of having a 'firm' minimum bash limit - neither hard nor soft. As it stands, there is a blanket ban on attacking anyone under 40% of your value. What is this was changed to a 'hard' limit being reduced to 30% of your value, and an additional 20% (ie attacking anyone under half your value) you would loose XP (on a sliding scale) - this being the 'soft' aspect.

This would protect the smallest players, whilst still giving greater freedom for planets to attack those who would normally be just out of reach - but at a cost in XP and rank (a trade off between value and score).

What do you think?

[noah02]

Originally Posted by lokken

In the long term playing for pure XP doesn't pay off - that's because your fleet is decimated and you've got nothing to rebuild it with, so suddenly your means of harvesting mega XP (by capping lots of roids) is gone.

It's still early doors, and roids aren't paying off their income yet. Only one planet was top 100 last round playing for pure XP, and the only reason he was successful was because he had a few mates willing to help increase his fleet power dramatically by defending against him.

hmmm if you talking about evil_n00b he was a cock and got kicked for whoring it.