Change The Game

[AdmV0rl0n]

Taking a slight walk on the wild side here.

This posting is made knowingly with an aim to up the anti so attacking again is primary.

1. Allow players 4 fleets, one a DEF fleet that has a modifier giving a slight advantage (you could call it fast reaction fleet and it has -1 ETA on the other 3 fleets.) This fleet would not have the 'Attack' option, only defend or fake

2. Change fleets so that its not only attack/defence/fake, but that ship types can be selected within fleets to land/fake.

This, I would like to choose to send FI, and CO and BS, and before launch I choose two to go along but fake on landing, while the BS lands as per normal (or vise versa)

3. Last scan to be researched would uncover this for the defender as an 'enhanced' fleet scan, after a certain number of ticks. (for the sake of argument, lets say an enhanced fleetscan tells you the fakes at ETA5, or perhaps 1 tick after they first show on INC screen)

People would have the def fast reaction fleets that are built with the -1 ETA time as a counter.

This would swing the game back to aggressive attacking as the game's mainstay

Ad

[furball]

The first idea has been suggested before, several times. Personally I'm not in favour of it. As for the ETA bonus, I'm not sure what this would contribute to the game other than making defending easier....

The second idea is far too powerful from an attacking point of view.

The third is irrelevant without the second idea, but would also increase the role of scanners - something that we've been trying to avoid.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by furball

The first idea has been suggested before, several times. Personally I'm not in favour of it. As for the ETA bonus, I'm not sure what this would contribute to the game other than making defending easier....

The second idea is far too powerful from an attacking point of view.

The third is irrelevant without the second idea, but would also increase the role of scanners - something that we've been trying to avoid.

Point 1, yes, its only there as a slight reaction to the heavier attacking bias care of two. But I like the idea anyway.

Point 2, yes, whole point of posting was to suggest a serious swing back to attacking. And yes, this really would open up new and innovative attacks. No more need to merely rely on prelaunch and sleeping foes, but actual skill.

I hate it when people jump to conclusions. Check 3. AGAIN.
I said enhanced fleet scan. And fleet scan can only be done by? Yes, you got it, THE defender, not scanners. Same applies!

[furball]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

I hate it when people jump to conclusions. Check 3. AGAIN.
I said enhanced fleet scan. And fleet scan can only be done by? Yes, you got it, THE defender, not scanners. Same applies!

Since I don't actually have a planet, and haven't since Round 16, you'll have to forgive me for not knowing off by heart the new name of what was once the fleet analysis scan.


Further, you ignored the first clause of my third point, which was that the additional scan would be useless without deciding to include your second idea in the game, which I was opposed to.


EDIT: ok, you added more, I'll my reply in a new post.

[Mzyxptlk]

Adding a fleet specifically designated for defence doesn't make the game more attack oriented. All it does is add a whole bunch of defence fleets to the universe, making attacks harder to land.

As for the second idea, it looks like it's adding complexity for the sake of complexity.

Finally, in my opinion the game doesn't need to be even more attack oriented, and even if it did, changing the bravery formula would be a much easier way of doing it. Of course, the same goes for the exact opposite: if you want to make the game more defence oriented, nerfing the bravery formula while enhancing the defence xp gains would be the easiest way of doing so.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Adding a fleet specifically designated for defence doesn't make the game more attack oriented. All it does is add a whole bunch of defence fleets to the universe, making attacks harder to land.

As for the second idea, it looks like it's adding complexity for the sake of complexity.

Finally, in my opinion the game doesn't need to be even more attack oriented, and even if it did, changing the bravery formula would be a much easier way of doing it. Of course, the same goes for the exact opposite: if you want to make the game more defence oriented, nerfing the bravery formula while enhancing the defence xp gains would be the easiest way of doing so.

The additional defense fleet is needed, balance in view of the change in the attacking fleet option. The added def fleets would only offset the changes. The changes I suggest would make landing easier, even with these def fleets.

In terms of 'complexity' its an added option that people could use if they wanted. (Perhaps you even have to research it).

The fact the actual defender has to scan the inc, means that the game would reward the players who play. Reporting inc to an alliance bot/channel would mean they have to work hard on guessing that inc.

I make no apology for the veer towards attack minded play, it was the purpose of the post!

Ad

[Mzyxptlk]

Ah, right. I didn't understand you wanted to introduce the extra defence fleet to balance out the other two ideas. My point still stands though, that it's much easier to change the XP formulae.

And that complexity for the sake of complexity is a pointless endeavour. Your argument against this seems to be that you can choose not to use it, but that's not how this works. If we were to introduce something extremely complex that gives me an advantage, people could not afford to ignore it. Basically, every aspect of the game needs to be simple enough for everyone to be able to understand and use them. Not only that, everyone needs to want to understand and use them.

[Makhil]

- If anything a 4th fleet should be part of a new research branch (storing slot > ingal slot > cluster slot > universe slot).
- About point 2, people used to do that by sending 2 fleets and recalling 1... when the value of the attack fleet had an impact on the capping. With today's rules and stats I don't really see the point, people defend vs the pods ship class. For the idea to be interesting, the stats should be custom tailored for that... when you see how difficult it is to get a decent set of simple stats, it would be a real challenge.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Makhil

when you see how difficult it is to get a decent set of simple stats, it would be a real challenge.

And it becomes more and more challenging. I predict that if the game lives until round 25 we'll have seven races, with ten different podclasses, flagships, marine carriers, and whatnots. Once it doesn't fit on a single screen 1680 by 1050 excel with verdana 8 or arial 10, I'll quit forever. The "challenge" comes the more things are added, the more complex it gets. For sake of "variability", eitrades was added - this was a clear tradeoff between making things harder and more complicated against easier and less complicated.


ps. someone needs to update the suggestion status thread.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Makhil

- If anything a 4th fleet should be part of a new research branch (storing slot > ingal slot > cluster slot > universe slot).
- About point 2, people used to do that by sending 2 fleets and recalling 1... when the value of the attack fleet had an impact on the capping. With today's rules and stats I don't really see the point, people defend vs the pods ship class. For the idea to be interesting, the stats should be custom tailored for that... when you see how difficult it is to get a decent set of simple stats, it would be a real challenge.

I'd be happy to see that 4th fleet come about through a research tree, and even the fake option to be like that too. Both would add to the game. The additional scan as well.

The original post had 3 basic ideas, which people can tweak, as they see fit.
1. A more attacking makeup to the game. Some people have responded by saying they think the game is already to attack minded. :/ I found that hard to believe.

The truth is attacks are landed in three main methods . A/ you land as part of an alliance wave. B/ Overnight care of prelaunching, and part of A/
C/ You pick off low hanging fruit, inactives, dead galaxies, fat lonesome planets, and the unallied.

None of the above is clever. None of it is especially good. This fake in fleet option would make attacking in new ways fly, and would open the game up from the limited boundaries attacks currently work within.

The last suggestion brings the game back to individual players playing. The advanced fleet scan needed to suss out the fake fleets is only available to the player the fleet is attacking, moving the game one step away from gal members, alliance bots on def channels, alliances and especially scanners. The new Def fleet is there with -ETA1 to bring the game back to gals, alliances in response to the attack, but the key is the player under attack is needed to do the scan.

Off course, people could blanket DEFEND against such raiders, but thats going to cost ships or fleets, and make defending trickier. Also, if the scan is not done, it brings a level of uncertainty in battles which PA desperately needs. It would no longer be a game of merely calcing out a result and bada bing, badda boom you have every answer. Everyone would be faking chunks of fleet, people would make mistakes and errors, people would get caught, or be caught. Alliances would have to at times overcommit on def to cover something they have not had a full scan yet. And their scanning infrastucture can't answer the question, only the *attacked* player can

Does this suggestion tip the game towards being more attacking. Yes. Does it also bring in more actual *player* action. Yes. Does it bring in elements of luck in battle. Yes. And all this basically is good, not bad.

If you feel the need to somehow add more on defense, you could up the XP given to defenders in line with the much higher risk they might take.

[Monroe]

AD you should really read this thread as it explains a lot of the arguments about a 4th slot. The fundamental problem is that the game code has 3 slots hard coded, so it would require a total rewrite of the game code to add a 4th slot for any purpose. Given the coding goals of the game as it exists today it ain't going to happen in the foreseeable future.

[Mzyxptlk]

My oh my, that's pretty shit coding. :/