R13 stats?

[Gate]

Gerbie: you sure those're right? Think target of buccs and cutters is mixed up

I remember how I didn't order any buccs due to their expense and lack of BS pods, and I that no matter how many cutters I ordered, a terran half my size was still able to roid me for free due to cutters beinc absolutely shit.

Same for pirates, which I didn't bother to build, instead building more cutters. I was still easily roided by terrans, or ziks, or cats, or xans though

[jerome]

Maybe your fleet composition was just ****ing shit then, because zik were imo, the best race in r11, irregardless of the success for xandathrii during r11. Had there been more ziks (I and quite a few others changed last minute from zik to xand - due to the large % of terrans) I'm sure you would've seen a slightly different universe range.

[Gate]

Well, it's kind of embarrassing that for much of the round (almost always after half way through), I'm pretty sure I was a top 10 zik, despite being in a low rank gal (rank 150-180 I think), and that I was generally rank 150-180 in game.

Oh, and the fact that you needed to spend as much value in pirates as an enemy had spent on CR in order to stop a CR attack from getting free roids, despite teh fact that generally it's easier to spend a larger proportion of your resources on CR due to the fact they encompass pods, anti FI and anti CO for both ziks and caths that had CR pods.

And what about xans flakking through with FR? AGAIN, you'd need to spend atleast as many res in clippers as they spent in FR in order to stop them, or they get free roids. I went for corsairs, and had 20k by the end of the round, and it took 2/3rds of their resources in dreadnoughts to kill them anyway. And spending resources on corsairs meant that you could afford fewer clippers which were useful to attack with. .

Or how about terrans with DE? The cutter had an attack ratio of 28, the terran minotaur had an armour ratio of 45:cost. That means you'd have to sink 1.6 times as many res into cutters as a terran sunk in DE before you'd stop them getting free roids. It's not the same as building enugh to kill, say, 30% of their DE, subbing 90% and they'd still get free roids.

And, again, DE was something terrans would spend a higher proportion of their resources on than most ziks could spend on cutters, due to it also encompassing anti FI and CR.

I fail to see how a race that was easily roided by every race is the best race.

What composition would you suggest in order to prevent the sheer number of incs I received, whilst still maintaining a decent roiding fleet? Meanwhile, you could hit xans, but you'd have to spend plenty on clippers, which would most likely suffer heavily to pulsars, not to mention the fact that you'd need to spend more res on clippers than they'd spent on FR in order to stop your CRs from taking losses too. CO vs. xans was impossible if they'd built a decent # of vsh too. Terran CO couldn't roid xans, terran DE was expensive.

Cath CR/viper fleets were the only viable way to regularly roid xans. Unless the xans built bolt throwers (only really viable anti BS in the game IMO) ofc, then the vipers would take a battering each time. Oh, you could send defenders, but they'd get easily battered by broadswords.

Whereas the xans not only had an excellent attack fleet, they had a way to actually hurt every single race in the game when it attacked them, often making it too expensive to attack, whereas the ziks struggled to somehow sub every attacking ship that was sent.

[Zo0f]

As has been said many times in this thread already, the only problem with this rounds stats was that Phil^ listened to those who shouted loudest and most often in the channel. The stats that were first put foward were far more balanced than the stats we finished with at the end of the beta. Though in Phil^s defence you could not get away from the idoicy displayed by the self proclaimed stats gods.

In my opinion one of the most important qualities whoever deals with the stats has is self-confidence. Last round it was not there, and as a result the stats were manipulated by idiots. Where as in contrast in r11 Sid had a very good answer and comeback for most questions. He knew the stats well and had confidence in his own judgement. This lead to far better stats.

In conclusion hire Sid again.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Gate

snip

Something like;
20% Cutlass
20% Cutters
15% Clippers
10% Maurs
10% Pirates
10% Buccaneers
10% Privateers
05% Raiders

% = distribution of resources

Every fleet combo CAN outflak this but it won't take too much to defend it in-gal/with alliance def either. Furthermore, You can defend or attack well enough with any ship (bar pods) so constant fluidity in fleets makes you less predictable. The 'thing' with this zik was, with it's supreme init & rather decent armour, the style of fleets meant you could subvert your targets before they fired (any target) but with inadequate damage so it was inevitable for you to take some losses but that was their 'disadvantage' for being able to roid every race quite easily - it always came at a price.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Something like;
20% Cutlass
20% Cutters
15% Clippers
10% Maurs
10% Pirates
10% Buccaneers
10% Privateers
05% Raiders

% = distribution of resources

Hmmm, my fleet, though I can't remember the distributions, ended up something like 18k corsair, 15k~ cutter, 5-7.5k thief, 1-2k clippers, 400 maurauder, 950 rogue, 8-10k privs, 350 raiders.

With this fleet, I intended to try and stop all low eta ships from hitting me. The rogues massacred FI, the thieves caused heavy damage to CO, whilst the maurs discouraged ziks from sending thieves to make me run my own, and the corsairs forced xans to send dreadnoughts along. Being the only active in my gal with a timezone close to GMT, (Had an active american, australian and a filipino), and often having to get up 0200-0400 GMT to ensure my inevitable incs were covered, the extra eta was vital. However, despite spending spending so many res on cutters, I was still easily roided by DE for absolutely free, which was hugely frustrating due to the sheer number of terrans. The fact that even the tiniest of ziks or caths could roid me for free too was, again, fking annoying, and xans just topped it off.

The point is, if I was to play with round 11 stats again, I would pick xans, no question asked. My experiences with ziks last round put me off them, and as I arrived just before round start, I still had a bad taste in my mouth from only being able to stun people.
If I was to play with the stats from round 12 again, I would be happy enough playing any race. I played as xans and found them good fun, if a lil hard to roid with. Caths and Ziks both performed well enough to prove they were viable, and terrans were, IMO, an excellent attacking race (Especially with the DE+harpy=FR fake, which I'd seen used to excellent effect). The 'harpy hole' would have really annoyed me (and anyone without a great gal :/) but the only easy combos against terrans were the FI+sentinel, or the terran FR fleet. Terrans were better off against cath CR or zik BS attacks than the xans were, almost immune to normal zik CO (without 'red def' I mean), and to cath or xan FR.

[jerome]

No Cutlasses?

Heh, you were a typical r11 Zik then I kept finding whilst scanning around. Every 'top' zik went straight for the cruiser-fleet (and stuck with it, like morons) and then tried to blame the stats for not being able to survive up there even though they did their best in not being versatile. It took a good couple of weeks before I could convince that damned newb, Forest to switch back to the superb Co-Fleet and he did rather well, even being the hostile-magnet he is, ended t50 I believe or somewhere close if not.

[Shev]

Agreed. Zik Co was nigh on unstoppable, particularly with anti-co not being pushed as highly to be built as anti-de for example.

A lot also depends on how you choose to play as well though. Gate, you're probably a great DC if you build your fleets to try to prevent incs, as that means you have lots of def ships. The players who end top pretty much just build attack fleets, with maybe one ship class to be used for defense. Everything else can be leeched etc.

[jerome]

Best fleets are the ones which are versatile - like the zikonians had the option to be, moreso than any other race in r11 - where as aforementioned, if you build right, anything you have can be used as defence ships or for offence purposes.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

No Cutlasses?

Heh, you were a typical r11 Zik then I kept finding whilst scanning around. Every 'top' zik went straight for the cruiser-fleet (and stuck with it, like morons) and then tried to blame the stats for not being able to survive up there even though they did their best in not being versatile. It took a good couple of weeks before I could convince that damned newb, Forest to switch back to the superb Co-Fleet and he did rather well, even being the hostile-magnet he is, ended t50 I believe or somewhere close if not.

Check the fleet agian, I had plenty of CO... 30k or so, compared to roughyl 1.8k CR. I gave up with CR when they were so easily stopped by a few bombers or a few drakes I was doing ok roiding too, I reached T5 ziks in uni for roids, despite being 10th in score, and roughly 15 for value, and got back to rank 5-8 in roids several times after I'd been roided.

I did build some cutlass once, and used them to attack once, but they got slaughtered. A xan was attacking me with dreads/FR, so I retalled with CO/cutlass. The cutlass were slaughtered by 250 newly built dreads, and a few hundred that were already there. (Which I took the risk for, due to inaccuracy of unitsies).

And IMO, killships >>>>>>>>>>>> subships for dissuading attackers from hitting you. I never once got FI incs when I started building rogues. Which was good, as there were gaping holes in my galaxy's watching time, but due to the fact I was usually at 2.5k+ roids, I needed plenty of rogues to make it too expensive.

I'm obviously a defensive player though, and used to relying on myself for def as I've either gone random, or got dumped in an idle pack (silly CutThroat, silly NoS ^^ ), if it wasn't for a couple of exiles we got (aussie and filipino), being able to report my incs to ND so often, I would never have broken the T500...



EDIT: And as for zik CO attacks, unlike this round, the cutlass was a FI, meaning that you'd either sacrifice a bunch with every attack, or there could be both vsh and thieves sent to kill your ships efficiently, and due to vsh advantage over sentinel's init, they were built in decent numbers too. Zik CO attacks I found more easy to defend last round with ally def atleast

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Gate

Check the fleet agian, I had plenty of CO... 30k or so, compared to roughyl 1.8k CR. I gave up with CR when they were so easily stopped by a few bombers or a few drakes I was doing ok roiding too, I reached T5 ziks in uni for roids, despite being 10th in score, and roughly 15 for value, and got back to rank 5-8 in roids several times after I'd been roided.

To be fair, there were no 'impressive' Ziks I personally noted all round, whereas there were a few good Caths ie, Mazzelaar, Exor, Dinobot & some LCH guy 24:1:x who had been doing rather well until we pounded him :|, but no ziks ever really came to my mind of doing too well so being 't10 zik' or whatever doesn't mean too much really.

I did build some cutlass once, and used them to attack once, but they got slaughtered. A xan was attacking me with dreads/FR, so I retalled with CO/cutlass. The cutlass were slaughtered by 250 newly built dreads, and a few hundred that were already there. (Which I took the risk for, due to inaccuracy of unitsies).

Cute, you didn't use cutlasses during their prime period aka upto tick 600(many people prioritized HCT/eta -4 before cr/bs as xanda - not that I blame them, I only got cr/bs myself at tick 400 - and even that was really due to 1up HC demanding all xands build fireblades because of the excess amount of xand fi incoming coming (though that changed quickly due to pretty much every xand apart from a handful maybe going full-fr/de and an odd-few fi as their roiding fleets)) when there were none or atleast not more than say 100 Fireblades around HENCE Cutlass+Cutters+Privateers(+thieves) would have been unbelievably strong vs Xanda, hell, during the round, I personally was roiding primarily with Fi, picking on Xands with not-too-many fireblades for roids - and I found plenty of targets myself, especially uptill last fortnight which was when people really managed to get over 500 fireblades heh. Hence it was also obviously frequently possible for zikonians to attack xandathriis with little amount of fireblades. Therefore there were plenty of cheap roids about, and not just for xandas.

And IMO, killships >>>>>>>>>>>> subships for dissuading attackers from hitting you. I never once got FI incs when I started building rogues. Which was good, as there were gaping holes in my galaxy's watching time, but due to the fact I was usually at 2.5k+ roids, I needed plenty of rogues to make it too expensive.

That's just a difference in our playing styles then, your defensive, I'm aggressive. If you wanted to build killships so much, then surely you should've gone terran or xand :/ . cath or zik are good for their low init non-killing ships - used to disable or 'subvert' your enemies/targets before they fire at you, their killships were in general poor apart from tarant/rogues due to their damage but that was really it, hardly any use for attackother than 2nd-rate flak or defence apart from in-gal.

[Veil05]

cocteau's fleet was amazing(when LCH were leading).

[Gate]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

To be fair, there were no 'impressive' Ziks I personally noted all round, whereas there were a few good Caths ie, Mazzelaar, Exor, Dinobot & some LCH guy 24:1:x who had been doing rather well until we pounded him :|, but no ziks ever really came to my mind of doing too well so being 't10 zik' or whatever doesn't mean too much really.

That's the whole point I was making! The consensus from this points towards the fact that perhaps it actually was the zik stats that were under par. I'm no great player, I was in a comparitively poor gal for most of the round. There was one xan in my gal who was constantly changing places with me, roughly same roids/value/score throughout the round (thugh I fell behind quite a bit at end due to 2 vacations), yet I still received incs far more regularly than him. I would say I received at least 10 incoming fleets for every one that he received, and I gathered I was attacking far more than he was too. His attacks were just more effective thanks to the sheer number of terrans :/

That's just a difference in our playing styles then, your defensive, I'm aggressive. If you wanted to build killships so much, then surely you should've gone terran or xand :/ . cath or zik are good for their low init non-killing ships - used to disable or 'subvert' your enemies/targets before they fire at you, their killships were in general poor apart from tarant/rogues due to their damage but that was really it, hardly any use for attackother than 2nd-rate flak or defence apart from in-gal.

It was kinda a tradition thing, since I started playing (*cough*PaX*cough ) I'd gone zik... though I was just saying that , as a defensive weapon, killships are far better than subships, but the problem comes when there's holes easily exploited by every race whilst the other races are able to quite efficiently counter your own attack fleets.

I prefer the idea of Round 12 stats to round 11 stats, though that's just personal experience. If we were to have R11 stats again, there's no way in hell I'd even consider going Zik again...

[jerome]

Well, I generally view things different from your own perspective (apart from the obvious statement that killships ofcourse, put of attackers more than sub ones :p) so this is as silly to me, as the old thread with me & Nova discussing r11 stats.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Well, I generally view things different from your own perspective (apart from the obvious statement that killships ofcourse, put of attackers more than sub ones ) so this is as silly to me, as the old thread with me & Nova discussing r11 stats.

I'm officially going to sleep now, and I'm not gonna wake up until next round :|

Talking about shipstats when i clearly have no clue is a silly thing to do

[jerome]

You will find that "silly" is a very common theme, when it comes to PA, in-general.

[Cannon_Fodder]

I havent read the rest of this thread so be gentle:
Ive only just come back to PA during havoc so im unsure of the last 8 ish rounds, it seems r11 stats were okay just the numbers werent even so how about taking a leaf out of planetside's book where you are forced to pick:

1) the least popular race
2) any race other than the most popular

It would seem #2 would be a better choice, ill leave it to you lot to discuss the % difference when this kicks in...

[mist]

that's a terrible plan, sorry.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Care to explain why?

[mist]

because if the stats are unbalanced, then forcing the weaker race on people will simply annoy them. you'll either get mass fake signups so that people can get the one they want, or people simply won't bother

[Appocomaster]

Firstly, being able to change the race ingame means people will always be sitting waiting until a race other than the one they want gets to #1. Signups will be mad. People will be refreshing the signup page, or trying to hack it, or something, so they can choose the race they want to choose.
Secondly, try convincing paying players that they can't choose the race they want to choose. Even if there were 10 races and you couldn't choose 1, they'd complain and refuse to play. I don't think PA can afford to do that

[Gate]

Originally Posted by sniborp

1) the least popular race
2) any race other than the most popular

It would seem #2 would be a better choice, ill leave it to you lot to discuss the % difference when this kicks in...

With round 12 stats, I wouldn't mind playing any of the races as I'd said before.

But if I was forced to play Zik again in r11 stats, I simply don't think I'd have the time commitment needed to do even close to respectably, and it would most likely ruin my round, due to the way I play. I'd think of quitting playing properly and just go as a scanner or something, which is not what I'd like to do, but it would atleast help ND a bit :/

[Neferti]

sorry gate, but have you gone mad? the round 12 stats were much worse than round 11. The only thing 'better' about round 12 was that zik owned, and xand sucked. Which is not really better for balance, now, is it...

[jerome]

Gate, can you please stop implying Zik is(was) a bad race in r11 just because your playing style was suited for them, if anything that is purely your fault for going zik then.

[Envious]

R11:

Race Count (%) Rank
Terran 1998 (42%) 3
Cathaar 619 (13%) 52
Xandathrii 1261 (26%) 1
Zikonian 867 (18%) 35


R12:

Race Count (%) Rank
Terran 1233 (31%) 4
Cathaar 610 (15%) 1
Xandathrii 1093 (27%) 11
Zikonian 993 (25%) 3


the outcome of R11 was WAY unbalanced. Unless you expect very even race distribution (which won't happen), that won't change.

[Cocteau]

Originally Posted by Veil05

cocteau's fleet was amazing(when LCH were leading).

[arrogant mode] Ofc, he's the best player of the round in terms of planet management :P

Hehe. Thanks

[cypher]

forest made an ok place cuz i deffed his puny arse 10 times a day:P

and for the record... even this round while stats were utter shit... if you wanna do well you can do well. one just requires a lil more effort then the next.. this round cath was easiest then zik but the other 2 certainly weren't undoable

[Envious]

although the first half of r12 wasn't really fun, looking back i must say Xan R12 was much better than Cath R11 (both being the worse races in their repective rounds).

[MrPubes]

Now that is a total biased and naive point of view, but I am around in PA for some time now, and I always followed the Stats question with high interest.
Seeing there were some people who spent much time in the past for the Stats, there is a kind of committee I would "build" to make new stats.
(Now as PA isn't free I would encourage PA-Team to actually employ Statsmaker?)

There were always some People who got the point in stats really, and showed that to the community. I won't dare to say they are the only ones, but they are the ones who made it public they knew.
I have a short list of people I want to see working together on the Stats after all. Ofc there are
Names to add I forgot, and maybe Names to erase from that list.

But always proven were the comments of those few people:
Tacticus, Ultimate Newbie and Sid.

Try to get them together (under close custody of the PA-Team and the Creators), let them make a basical list of stats, found a commitee of the Top15 Alliance HCs and the PA-Team and let them decide the final stats together with the Statsmaker.

(All Names, Number, etc can be changed of course, this is just a basic idea ;-) )

[Kal]

Originally Posted by MrPubes

Now that is a total biased and naive point of view, but I am around in PA for some time now, and I always followed the Stats question with high interest.
Seeing there were some people who spent much time in the past for the Stats, there is a kind of committee I would "build" to make new stats.
(Now as PA isn't free I would encourage PA-Team to actually employ Statsmaker?)

There were always some People who got the point in stats really, and showed that to the community. I won't dare to say they are the only ones, but they are the ones who made it public they knew.
I have a short list of people I want to see working together on the Stats after all. Ofc there are
Names to add I forgot, and maybe Names to erase from that list.

But always proven were the comments of those few people:
Tacticus, Ultimate Newbie and Sid.

Try to get them together (under close custody of the PA-Team and the Creators), let them make a basical list of stats, found a commitee of the Top15 Alliance HCs and the PA-Team and let them decide the final stats together with the Statsmaker.

(All Names, Number, etc can be changed of course, this is just a basic idea ;-) )

what u describe is very similar to what is being done

[MrPubes]

I thought PA-Team made the Stats themselves?
As PA-Teamer are not in an alliance anymore, they tend to not see some coherences or ups/downs in stats I think.
I feel that the people working on the Stats should be people who are _constantly_ around in PA, very active and play a leading part in a major alliance. Only with being involved that much in PA you are really eligible to make the Stats.
You have to know most of the parts PA has to be most successfull.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Neferti

sorry gate, but have you gone mad? the round 12 stats were much worse than round 11. The only thing 'better' about round 12 was that zik owned, and xand sucked. Which is not really better for balance, now, is it...

I quite enjoyed playing xand this round, I found it far easier anyway... and they suited my 'defensive' style more...

[Gate]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Gate, can you please stop implying Zik is(was) a bad race in r11 just because your playing style was suited for them, if anything that is purely your fault for going zik then.

'But if I was forced to play Zik again in r11 stats, I simply don't think I'd have the time commitment needed to do even close to respectably, and it would most likely ruin my round, due to the way I play. I'd think of quitting playing properly and just go as a scanner or something, which is not what I'd like to do, but it would atleast help ND a bit :/'

I didn't say they were a bad race, almost the entire implication there was that I wouldn't want to play them again.

[jerome]

Did you read what you just said?

[Gate]

Uhh yea.

'I simply don't think I'd have the time commitment needed to do even close to respectably, and it would most likely ruin my round, due to the way I play.' seemed the main gist of it.

[jerome]

That means nothing to random people who base their race choice on what they see on this meaningless forums (the very ones which stated terrans were the almighty race for r11 - oh how well that turned out . Hence, my dislike of what the main gist of your recent posts which have been something along the lines of 'oh i'll suck with zik so bad'.

[Cannon_Fodder]

i think ill stick with zik....

[evil n00b]

The stats is always perfect.
People that sucks blames it on the stats, it has always been like that and will always be like it.
If you pick a race you cant play, then you suck. And if you suck, then it doesnt matter what race you play cos you will suck anyway.
Also my experience about most alliance leaders is that they suck in strats and is therefore inacapable of balancing anything.

[Envious]

Originally Posted by evil n00b

The stats is always perfect.
People that sucks blames it on the stats, it has always been like that and will always be like it.

most bullshit post so far.

if races are meant to have any meaning ( = significant number of all races in the game), you need to make them fairly balanced. else, just go back to pre-round 6 ships.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

That means nothing to random people who base their race choice on what they see on this meaningless forums (the very ones which stated terrans were the almighty race for r11 - oh how well that turned out . Hence, my dislike of what the main gist of your recent posts which have been something along the lines of 'oh i'll suck with zik so bad'.

Anyone who bases their race choice on what they read on these meaningless forums, will most likely not have a great gal and alliance, and therefore will be easily roided into the ground and never stand even a respectable chance of doing well if they were to play Ziks in R11 stats though...

Those who don't base their opinion on what they read on here, are likely to have the gal/alliance to stop themselves being roided so easily and so could play ziks. I doubt I've made any impressions for the worse

[Envious]

Well i must say i probably would have appreciated someone telling me not to play Cath at the start of R11. But thats what get when you have your first look at www.planetarion.com in 6 months, notice a new round is starting in 3 hours and realize you don't really have such a thing called "free will"

[jerome]

Gate - tell that to the elite terrans of r11

evil n00b - Sid isn't your average command guy, especiallylooking at the level of the average HC's in the current alliances of PA heh.

[Gio2k]

Why bother with stats? In the end all players choose their race according to the distribution of the universe. Zik was an obvious choice last round, as Xan was in r11. Fix that, and start talking again about stats.

[mist]

and what do you think causes that distribution?

[Gate]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Gate - tell that to the elite terrans of r11

Aye, but they deserved anything they got for listening to people on these forums

evil n00b - Sid isn't your average command guy, especiallylooking at the level of the average HC's in the current alliances of PA heh.

Most military HC have a decent enough handling of the stats; particularly in the upper echelons of alliances. From my experience anyway. And from my experiences with him, and from hearsay, Sid is one of the most brilliant military PA players around. He has an excellent idea of how to play the game.

Having him designing teh stats a) makes stats I don't like ( ) and b) opens up accusations of cheating. I particularly liked the conspiracy theory that 1up pwned beta with terrans, so people went terran, then played normal round as xan to easily abuse their enemies, whilst also having a race that was quite capable of defending itself quite easily against everything, particularly as its weaknesses was against sub/EMP and this could be quite easily flakked through.

I'm not saying I support this conspiracy theory, I heard many hilarious ones, but this was one which was coherently written and also made me smile a bit ^^

[Neferti]

i played cat in round 11 and i loved it even though i had certain people in my alliance telling me constantly what a noobish idiot i am I finished as like 7th top cat (which means nothing, as i was like 220th overall!) but it was one of the rounds i enjoyed the most.

Round 12 i played cat again. I always have been cat though i may change next round. Round 12, as a planet, i did crap! Still enjoyed it cos of the alliance stuff. My point is that yes, it is possible to play well with bad stats; it's equally possible to play badly with good stats. Stats are never going to be exactly balanced. All we ask is that each race is playable, for people with a certain playing style. My style has always been suited by cat; however i intend to experiment with xand next round (unless they're obviously a bad race). Part of the fun for me is learning how to play well within the stats I dont go in for working it all out ahead of time, i find that boring and i'm here to have fun!

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Neferti

i played cat in round 11 and i loved it even though i had certain people in my alliance telling me constantly what a noobish idiot i am

That wasn't really meant as a personal insult though. I believe it was said that 'zik and cath are the n00b races of the round', but the guy who said that is a dirty paedophile, so I wouldn't take offence to it

[Proxi]

I played zik in round 11 and i thought they werent bad. The only problem was that since i was relatively small (i joined late in the round) bigger planets thought nothing of outflakking my defence, and although i could get it covered most of the time in gal or alliance wise, it wasnt fun to have almost constantly heaving incoming because i couldnt kill peoples ships

[Gate]

Originally Posted by veX

I played zik in round 11 and i thought they werent bad. The only problem was that since i was relatively small (i joined late in the round) bigger planets thought nothing of outflakking my defence, and although i could get it covered most of the time in gal or alliance wise, it wasnt fun to have almost constantly heaving incoming because i couldnt kill peoples ships

That was one of the major things that annoyed me. And since teh biggest zik was rank 35, unless they were 1up, then they would have had a bloody hard time too. And the fact that many terrans smaller than you thought nothing of DEing you was irritating too.

Which is why I'd only play zik if I was confident of being very active, and in a very good gal, due to the way I play :|

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Gate

Aye, but they deserved anything they got for listening to people on these forums :p



Most military HC have a decent enough handling of the stats; particularly in the upper echelons of alliances. From my experience anyway. And from my experiences with him, and from hearsay, Sid is one of the most brilliant military PA players around. He has an excellent idea of how to play the game.

Having him designing teh stats a) makes stats I don't like ( ;) ) and b) opens up accusations of cheating. I particularly liked the conspiracy theory that 1up pwned beta with terrans, so people went terran, then played normal round as xan to easily abuse their enemies, whilst also having a race that was quite capable of defending itself quite easily against everything, particularly as its weaknesses was against sub/EMP and this could be quite easily flakked through.

I'm not saying I support this conspiracy theory, I heard many hilarious ones, but this was one which was coherently written and also made me smile a bit ^^

Actually, it was mainly non-1up who pwned the betas with terrans - the big public beta atleast. I played it with Ministry, and we had atleast 10 top50 guys - all terrans, and I remember very well how 1up only played with a few players & the best alliance (score-wise atleast) was by far Vision so ....... "heh :D". You haven't actually stated ANY reasons for disliking the stats apart from your frankly retarded dislike of the zik - you write it off because it doesn't suit you, which is understandable but doesn't make it any less of a superb race.

"having a race that was quite capable of defending itself quite easily against everything, particularly as its weaknesses was against sub/EMP and this could be quite easily flakked through." Yeah.. and terrans couldn't do that either huh :rolleyes: nor Cath or Zik? heh, incase you didn't remember but the only viable races to roid the terrans were infact the xandathrii, and the ziko cofleet - but for losses. Funnily enough, terrans were probably the strongest race on paper but with such a % of them, it meant there wouldn't be enough caths/ziks to feed them roids as the round shown and we all know what happened when the xands managed to have sizable fr/de fleets:)