Round 49 Stats

[Buly]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Xan needs 5 classes (assuming they want to roid with fr). That is unplayable.

why would they need FI?

[Kaiba]

Originally Posted by M0RPH3US

worst xan stats i have ever seen, and i mostly play xan

thx for that Kai

cya r50

Have you missed everything that says they havent been updated yet??

I have literally just finished doing it so look again. Everyone is so quick to bandwagon. How about instead of saying 'worse xan stats' say why they are then we can maybe see how we can make them more playable within the set.

[isildurx]

Xan FI looks really shit tho.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Buly

why would they need FI?

I don't actually remember, but I'm sure that at some point they shot at something that nothing else shot at?

Originally Posted by isildurx

Xan FI looks really shit tho.

I don't think going for a roiding fleet that has 0 teaming options is going to be viable, regardless of how good or bad the fleet is.

[Makhil]

From the updated stats:

Ter DE
0 loss def = Wyvern(Bs), Buccs(FR), voyager(FR)
mutual kill = Banshee(FI)

Ter BS
0 loss def = Juggernaut(BS)
mutual kill = Syren(CR), Cutter (DE)

========================================

Cath CO
0 loss def = Thief(fr), Mantis(BS), Tempest(FR)

Cath CR
0 loss def = Drake(DE), Centaur(DE)


========================================

Xan FI
better init = Spirit(DE), Lancer(CO)
mutual kill = Peg(DE)

Xan DE
better init = Wraith(CO)
mutual kill = Voyager(FR)
0 loss def = Wyvern(BS), Pirate(CR)

========================================

Zik FR
0 loss def = Wyvern(BS), Pillager (FI)

Zik CR
no free kill
All anti CR has better init


========================================

Etd FR
mutual kill = Bomber(DE)

Etd BS
0 loss def = Gryphon(FR), Voyager(FR)
mutual steal = Juggernaut(BS)

That's definitely not a set for solo, but rather for heavy teamups and lowbies bashing...
Forcing teamups means a big advantage for the strongest alliances.
0 loss def also means big advantage for the strong alliances coz they can afford def whores.
0 loss def vs both Cath attack fleets ?????

[isildurx]

yeah :\

[Patrikc]

How can you say Xan Fi is shit when there's an entire race that doesn't even shoot Fi!

[Kaiba]

Originally Posted by Patrikc

How can you say Xan Fi is shit when there's an entire race that doesn't even shoot Fi!

Sorry! Must have missed that one when changing the stats

Cutlass was always targetting FI.


I still need to sort emp efficences btw, so bear with me.

[isildurx]

I don't think I've ever seen "ST" stats where soloing has been so hard, having to team up is boring

[Makhil]

With these stats the round is custom tailored for App and Ult, as if they needed it.
They can have fortress gals, they can have def planets focussing on the 0 loss def ships.
Smaller alliances will be frustrated in attacks coz 0 loss def ships can easily be faked in 3 def fleets. Landings will be a gamble and costly most of the time. Smaller alliances will have to trade value for roids.
So it means everybody will just bash the smaller ones, but even so they'll have to attack in combos.

If you have a Cath ingal focussing on Mantis and some Etd in ally massing Lancers, you'll cover the FICO (xan/cath) combo easily.

Playing Foker style is the (only?) solution for the small alliances (and by small i mean not full tag).

A round that will be fun for the 2 big alliances, + probably for the HCs of the smaller ones (as they're members will just be pushing buttons).

No place for soloing success apart from the traditionnal Friday night lucky landing.

Now stats can also be turned over by the universe composition, let's see what the 200 active planets will pick.

[Kaiba]

I didnt want stats where the easy option was fi/co. when I sort out emp effs tonight it will be reflected better. I also didn't want it to be a round where everyone could 'focker' it up, hence the fact xan fi struggles to land. I don't agree that this round is tailored for big alliances through stats, the stats have very little effect on their ability to fort well. That is more down to activity, responsiveness and general skill. If anything these stats should help small alliances hold there roids a little better as its pushing def responsiveness to 2 ticks for a lot of incommings.

Really though it comes down to your commitment to the game at the right times and not that stats need to be tailored to lazy or crap players

[isildurx]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

I don't agree that this round is tailored for big alliances through stats, the stats have very little effect on their ability to fort well.

0 loss defships almost always is a big plus for the biggest and most active alliances as they have a much more resourcesaving way of covering incs when they get hit big

[Makhil]

Kaiba i'm not judging your intention which was commandable, but the end result which goes in the opposite direction.
We won't argue, the round will show who's right, but it looks like you've been used to make the stats some people wanted, not the ones in your first idea.

[isildurx]

Well this iteration is better than the previous one, but still pretty s*it

[Makhil]

better ? I'd say "different"

[Kaiba]

Originally Posted by isildurx

0 loss defships almost always is a big plus for the biggest and most active alliances as they have a much more resourcesaving way of covering incs when they get hit big

I'm not disputing that, I'm saying that better alliances shouldn't be punished for being better. The stats shouldn't be used as a way to level the playing field. Everyone has equal choice with strategy, how they play and how commited they are is the difference.

If you want to win pa then you need to put time into it, that's the same with any game. Those who can't rank lower, those who can't play efficiently rank lower, that's just how it works.

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

I'm not disputing that, I'm saying that better alliances shouldn't be punished for being better...

By removing the possibility to attack solo (other than bashing inactive lowbies), you don't punish the bigger alliances, you help them.
By creating so many 0 loss def ships (for almost every kind of inc) you don't punish the bigger alliances, you help them.

Do they need that extra help, certainly not, so what's the point ? If anything I'm sure they would be glad with a little bit more challenge.
That's not going to happen with these stats.

If smaller alliances don't want to be just farms, there's only one way: the fockers way. But even that you said it yourself, you took care it could not happen...

[isildurx]

This round will most likely see the same "initfest" that we saw two rounds ago.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by isildurx

This round will most likely see the same "initfest" that we saw two rounds ago.

This is funny, since the stats two rounds ago were also offensive, though not quite as offensive as last round. The initfest happened because of politics, not really because of stats.

[Reincarnate]

not punishing big alliances is one thing, actually making stats that benefit them more than small is completely another.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

not punishing big alliances is one thing, actually making stats that benefit them more than small is completely another.

No, actually, those are exactly the same thing. It's just a matter of degree.



(Though, for what it's worth, at this point I think stats that benefit alliances other than Ultores and Apprime would probably be good for the game.)

[M0RPH3US]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Have you missed everything that says they havent been updated yet??

I have literally just finished doing it so look again. Everyone is so quick to bandwagon. How about instead of saying 'worse xan stats' say why they are then we can maybe see how we can make them more playable within the set.

sorry Kai
looking at the fixes i cant find anything making me want to play this round.

reasons have been mentioned a lot from others
main points:
0 loss defence ships (why need them at all?)
not beeing able to soloattack decent targets

these 2 points make for some really boring round, cause if there is something fun left in PA then its capping roids

at least from my POV

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

No, actually, those are exactly the same thing. It's just a matter of degree.



(Though, for what it's worth, at this point I think stats that benefit alliances other than Ultores and Apprime would probably be good for the game.)

thats the idea behind that analogy, that they are the same thing but just on different scales. perhaps it is only known in england.

[Mzyxptlk]

I know what it means, but it does appear like I totally used it incorrectly. My point was that if X fights Y, helping X is the same as hurting Y.

[Kaiba]

Changes:

Terran:

Dragon, Wyvern> +10% EMP Res


Cathaar

All Cat Emp Effecencies downgraded by about 30-40% overall

Beetle added t3 anti BS


Xan

Banshee int changed from 5 to 3


Zik

None


ETD

Lancer int changed from 3 to 4

Voyager int changed from 6 to 7

Guardian, Juggernaught > +10% EMP Res

[isildurx]

I think I like those changes, still a bit too many 0-loss defships for my liking tho'

[Kaiba]

Ok few more changes... apologies, hopefully im nearly there now


Drake t2 Fr

Upped the a/c and d/c of Pegasus

Upped the Eff of Cutlass

Change Etd Cr targetting to Guard - t1 De t2 Fr and Jugg t1 - Cr

Changed Voyager int to 8 and buffed Etd Fr in general to bring it more inline with rest of universe


Spotted (with help from Maxi) that i hadnt sorted Widow which was 1000% effective against Cr!! Hopefully corrected now

[isildurx]

Maybe make the cent anti bs so that the two etd steal ships don't steal the same class?

[Blue_Esper]

looks like another ST round, was really hoping for a MT

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Blue_Esper

looks like another ST round, was really hoping for a MT

The last couple of rounds have been ST / MT compromises ... in some ways I think they're better than "Full" ST or "Full" MT.

[Kaiba]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

The last couple of rounds have been ST / MT compromises ... in some ways I think they're better than "Full" ST or "Full" MT.

I agree here. I think we have established a middle ground that appeases both sides

[Tiamat101]

Personally i hate ST rounds i think they are stupid, but obviously im in the minority on this one. So what ever

[Makhil]

with updated stats

TER DE
0 loss def: Wyvern(bs)
better init: Banshee(fi), Cutter(fr), Centaur(fr)
mutual kill:

TER BS
0 loss def:
better init:
mutual kill: Syren(cr)

========================

CATH CO
0 loss def: Mantis(bs), Thief(fr)
better init: Tempest(fr)
mutual kill:

CATH CR
0 loss def: Drake(de)
better init:
mutual kill:

========================

XAN FI
0 loss def:
better init:
mutual kill: Lancer(co)

XAN DE
0 loss def: Pirate(cr)
better init: Wyvern(bs)
mutual kill: Centaur(fr)

========================

ZIK FR
0 loss def: Wyvern(bs)
better init: Bomber(de), Pirate(cr)
mutual kill:

ZIK CR
0 loss def:
better init: Drake(de), Dragon(bs),Spectre(bs),
mutual kill:


========================

ETD FR
0 loss def: Pirate(cr)
better init: Roach(cr), Wyvern(bs)
mutual kill: Bomber(de)

ETD BS
0 loss def:
better init: Syren(cr), Clipper(cr)
mutual kill:

[Blue_Esper]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

The last couple of rounds have been ST / MT compromises ... in some ways I think they're better than "Full" ST or "Full" MT.

The compromise is that you get one or two MT ships per race and 5-6 ST ships per race, making it a ST round with one or two MT ships thrown in, which has been the case for the last couple of rounds id have rather seen a MT "compromise"

[Kaiba]

Originally Posted by Blue_Esper

The compromise is that you get one or two MT ships per race and 5-6 ST ships per race, making it a ST round with one or two MT ships thrown in, which has been the case for the last couple of rounds id have rather seen a MT "compromise"

But even in a full mt round every race would have 1-2 ships with only t1. Really 80% st stats with 20% mt is the best way. You can build 4-5 ships as any planet and still have reasonable gaps. With full mt stats most people found 3 ship builds and cruised the round.

[Kaiba]

Makhil what does your post show except the obvious?

We have removed all the fi/co free fire def ships which make it more attacking and allowed xan fi roiding options whilst weakening it enough that it isn't op.

I will do all the emp effs tonight but bar that I think the stats are finished

[Blue_Esper]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

But even in a full mt round every race would have 1-2 ships with only t1. Really 80% st stats with 20% mt is the best way. You can build 4-5 ships as any planet and still have reasonable gaps. With full mt stats most people found 3 ship builds and cruised the round.

thats a good thing, throw in 3 pod fleets and bam

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Makhil what does your post show except the obvious?

Making facts obvious is helpful.

[Kaiba]

I wasn't being sarcastic... I was genuinely asking what it's purpose was except the obvious as there was no accompanying note

[Makhil]

What is obvious for you who have spent hours (i hope) perfecting thoses stats, isn't that obvious to someone who discover them. I think it's good to be able to see at a glance which fleets will be easier to land solo... and which ones are to be avoided.

[Maxi]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Ok few more changes... apologies, hopefully im nearly there now


Drake t2 Fr

Upped the a/c and d/c of Pegasus

Upped the Eff of Cutlass

Change Etd Cr targetting to Guard - t1 De t2 Fr and Jugg t1 - Cr

Changed Voyager int to 8 and buffed Etd Fr in general to bring it more inline with rest of universe


Spotted (with help from Maxi) that i hadnt sorted Widow which was 1000% effective against Cr!! Hopefully corrected now

[TheoDD]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

who the hell are those stats on beta??

any explaination how they passed a vetting process from appoco?

^ what goes around comes around?

My draft was more balanced than this is. Probably the most defensive set i've seen in a long time. Seeing 2 viable options only. When i say viable: I mean that can land without losses, after soaking all ingal/ally def.

[Zotnam]

Wyvern pretty much make you immune to 4 different attack fleeets, even if they team up. Drake make you immune to another two.
Syren makes it costy for two more attack fleets.

So you are really left with cath co and xan fi that can roid terran. A bit like this round I guess, instead of Apps you just have lancers and for cath CO you'll need to get Thiefs in gal (or pl) or get DE flak.

Seems like far and away the best race to me defensively, BS attack fleet is also very strong, the DE are kinda meh but probably useful for faking. All in all terran would definitely be my pick with these stats.

[isildurx]

As I was just telling mz on irc, I've got to agree with you there. Terran look the strongest, zik looks pretty hopeless.

[isildurx]

My personal opinion is that zik should be given a low-init anti bs killship.

[Mzyxptlk]

Beetle's targetting order makes Mantis useless. How about Beetle to T1 Co, T2 Fi, and Mantis to T1 Fi? Not seeing the point of the Beetle's T3, no one's going to send a million Beetles to cover 200 Ter Bs, so just drop it.

I'd like to see the Cutlass move class to Fi. To compensate, give the Phantom a T2 Fi and drop its eff.

Clipper to kill at init 7, seconding Isil.

I don't like the Syren/Dragon fight to the death. Not sure how to fix it.

I'd like to see Etd steal Cat Co, but it's probably too late for a change of that magnitude.

[Influence]

Originally Posted by isildurx

My personal opinion is that zik should be given a low-init anti bs killship.

some race (WHICH ISNT ALSO TERRAN) should be given that at least.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

I don't like the Syren/Dragon fight to the death. Not sure how to fix it.

You serious? i think this is the only thing that keeps ter BS in check 'a bit' under the current set of stats

[Killeah]

Originally Posted by isildurx

As I was just telling mz on irc, I've got to agree with you there. Terran look the strongest, zik looks pretty hopeless.

No suprise here - kai is a known terran whore, making your favourite race strongest would be the logical choice for the biased stat-maker.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Influence

You serious? i think this is the only thing that keeps ter BS in check 'a bit' under the current set of stats

Why do you assume that I want to resolve the Syren/Dragon thing in favour of Dragons?

[Kaiba]

Influence I have played Terran once in 13 rounds. I dunno how that make me a Terran whore. I think far more is playable than people say. Most the universe wanted to go xan this round, we will see what happens now.

If as everyone here says ter bs is amazing then systems will be built by all those terrains making it shit to land. So will everyone go Terran??