zik dying 1:1 ???

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Steal works as follows:

Also

Why wasn't this explained before the tickstart? Why wasn't this written clearly on manual? Why was this information only available to beta testers?

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

A beta battlereport of the invincible rogues. How does all this work in practise? In manual, it says 1:1 value (resource for resource).




YOU KNOW WHAT
I'm going to be negrepped, deleted, banned, and maimed for posting this

BUT


SUCK COCK

The issue with the beta battle reports is that they're beta, and as such that was possibly not accurate. I think that was an example of when I was tweaking the combat engine and it wasn't working properly.

Rogues aren't "invincible". I was talking about a situation with one Rogue (not Rogues) against certain ships, where they don't steal enough to kill themselves.

In practice, the ratio will probably end up being 1:1, but I was just highlighting the point that it will not always be 1:1. I admit it was a mistake to not have posted earlier, as usually I do an "Appoco explains" thread about this sort of thing, and I will adjust the manual description.


Perhaps "up to 1:1, assuming enough available steal ships exist" would make you happier ?

[Wandows]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

This isn't making any sense.

So, zikonians are stealing not 1:1 VALUE but 1:1 DAMAGE/ARMOR?

You know, this is the kind of shit you announce before the ticker starts.

this is not true. It calcs how much value should be lost in stealing ships, and bases each fleet its value loss on the damage it did on the target ships (iirc from beta) compared to the other steal ships from other fleets involved.

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

So, ships die at 1:1 value, ceteris paribus, it's impossible for 165k to steal > 165k, because 1*165k = 165k, not >165k. How can you steal more value if you die on rate of 1:1 value?

As you may have noticed (not sure how much attention you paid to the stats), the damage Zik steal ships do is quite high, this means most steal ships are able to steal > 100% their own value. Hence, if you never send more steal ships than you need to steal all target class ships (or not enough to steal all) you should be able to gain in value as you obivously can't lose more ships than you sent.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Perhaps "up to 1:1, assuming enough available steal ships exist" would make you happier ?

It's ****ing brilliant that you're telling this to us after tickstart. Thanks.

[Remy]

Ok, for all those who dont understand:

Ziks DO steal/die on a 1:1 value basis, BUT there is a catch. I will explain

Situation A:

Imagine you have 3000 cutlass firing at 1000 vipers. This is the battle report:
http://bcalc.lch-hq.org/?id=394604562508541169924299

You see that both the attacker as the defender loses 35k in ships:
- cutlass stel 35k worth of vipers
- 35k cutlass die (equals the value of the stolen ships)


Situation B:

Now the vipers are not 1000, but 1500:

http://bcalc.lch-hq.org/?id=391259867301021169924425

- The cutlass steal 53k value of vipers
- The cutlass total value is worth 42k. Therfore, only 42k can die for the stealing.

In this case, the zik has an advantage

Situation C:

This is the same as Situation A, but i explained it apart from A, to make it clearer

http://bcalc.lch-hq.org/?id=177563469261471169924589

In this case, the ZIK is at a disadvantage, because he CUD have stolen the vipers for less losses:

- the vipers are worth 20k
- the cutlass die at 20k too, becaue the steal 20k
- BUT: 14k value of cutlass wud have been enough to steal the 571 vipers.

The zik lost 6k more then he cud have managed

[voodoo]

hooray for clearing things up at tick 24.
once again another episode of great coordination synchronisation and communication from our PATeam .
how can you not love them?

[Remy]

im not pa team, im support team, and just felt the need to react to the for some unclear situation.

So, before you react, know what to write

[jerome]

i suspect he's talking about appoco

[voodoo]

you would be right.

[ohatlen]

RANDOM

[Remy]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

It's ****ing brilliant that you're telling this to us after tickstart. Thanks.

I found it out 5 minutes after i learnt about the zik-die-on-steal. And i dont even play..... And the 1:1 value die has been known for a while

[jerome]

yeah i knew as well, but doesn't mean it shouldn't have been announced correctly

[Remy]

Originally Posted by Jester

I think you're being a bit defensive here...

I didnt defend anything, just made a statement

[Remy]

Originally Posted by jerome

yeah i knew as well, but doesn't mean it shouldn't have been announced correctly

That might be right, but Keizari is just making a scene and acting a drama queen.

(this is my utter personal view, and has nothing to do with my official PA jobs, btw, before ppl start complaining about that)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by voodoo

iacta alea est.
let's see what comes from it.
i am eagerly waiting for JBG's views on the "leetness" of zik this round, how he will play it and make a "profit", or anybody else for that matter who plays zik and still manages to get a decent rank.

good luck to us all

They aren't, I'm not and I doubt many will. Not that they're that appalling, just a lot of good zik players probably switched to a better race for this round so the stats will be warped.


I believe paisley pointed out that not really 1:1 value stealing thing before in another thread. It is not really self-evident though, it's just as believable that you'd only be able to steal as much value as your had.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Remy

And the 1:1 value die has been known for a while

Is it really 1:1 value die? Are you sure? I'm not so sure it's really a fact that zikonian steal ships die 1 per 1 resource worth value when stealing ships. As appocomaster himself said, there are possibilities of up to 1:1,5 value dies. To make it very clear to you, this means:

One resource worth of zikonian ships per 1,52 resources worth of stolen fleets. This means, zikonian ships do not die for 1:1 resource.

Originally Posted by Remy

That might be right, but Keizari is just making a scene and acting a drama queen.

(this is my utter personal view, and has nothing to do with my official PA jobs, btw, before ppl start complaining about that)

I went to support and asked if they could clarify me the zikonian rules, and they were a little uncertain. At #conspiracy, harm and Satyr explained to me that whatever the manual or announcements tell is utter bullshite, and zikonian ships die a bit more "case by case" depending on the factual amounts of zikonian ships present in compared to the amount of target ships present rather than as per 1:1. For a practical evidence on this, I would refer to the example Appocomaster gave, where zikonian ships do not die while stealing as per 1:1 value (or resource) ratings.

Yes, I am making a scheme and drama queen, because it makes a huge difference whether you can steal more than you have in ground resources or not. If you can, your ships are definately not dying on 1:1 resource/value basis.

Yet, I would like to refer you to the manual, which says:

Some of the Zikonian ships are capable of stealing ships for the combat instead of destroying them. These ships do not return to their owners after combat and instead return to the stealer's ships. The Ship Capture system works similarly to the system for EMP, but instead of freezing the ship, they are stolen. Frozen ships can be stolen. Steal ships die at a 1:1 value (resource for resource) when stealing other ships.

And I would like to emphasis the piece which says die at a 1:1 value (resource for resource) when stealing other ships. I think this piece of manual is utter bullsh'te, and hasn't been officially clarified until the recent post by a game administrator on the forum. Hell, I consider myself "pretty aware" of things, and I did not play the beta testings - so I was living under the (as it seems) popular impression that a steal ship can never steal more than it's value in resources. I can understand that in cases of one rogue firing at five hundred phantoms, it will get wrecked. But a 152% gain?

That's far out of proportion. And all of this was not clarified until well after tickstart.

Excuse me. I had to add this. As quite a few people went "wtf" when I spoke about zikonians being able to gain +52% value over steals.

Originally Posted by Wandows

you should be able to gain in value as you obivously can't lose more ships than you sent.

Is it equally obvious that you can gain in value more than what you've sent, if the manual (and announcements refering to it) say that zikonian ships die on 1:1 value (resource for resource) basis?

[Remy]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

I went to support and asked if they could clarify me the zikonian rules, and they were a little uncertain.

I may not have noticed everything in #suppot, but the part i witnessed was a bit different from what you tell us here. You came in, held a tirade, then left.

Im sure that, had you stayed longer, and been less agitated (i dont say i dont understand your agitation), your question would have been answered (or relayed) in an orderly fashion :-)

As far as the formula is concerned: I programmed the LCH bcalc the same way that the manual says, and checked it with some beta breports. They were consistent, so id say that the 1:1 value thing actually IS correct. The reason you can get more value then you lose, is because of the Situation B i stated earlier.

If not, then i am at a loss why my bcalc gave the same results as the beta breports.

[Smudge]

if zik ship stealing wanted to be change, why not do it based on the same sort of system like XP, ie fleet values taken into consideration etc?

that way bashing can be "capped" to prevent bashings etc

[Marv]

Originally Posted by Smudge

if zik ship stealing wanted to be change, why not do it based on the same sort of system like XP, ie fleet values taken into consideration etc?

that way bashing can be "capped" to prevent bashings etc

Do you mean limiting bashing or stopping it going on? You seem to contradict yourself.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Marv

Do you mean limiting bashing or stopping it going on? You seem to contradict yourself.

I dont think that they are that contradictory; bashing tiny planets at your bash limits to profit in terms of stolen ships means that there is economic incentive to bash people - especially the people who are the most vulnerable to that kind of attack.

By introducing an XP type system, it becomes far less profitable to bash those right at the limit, and as such move the fights to a more even level, which should reduce bashing at a universal level. Sure, it wont prevent it, but the present system which rewards bashing is kinda silly.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Remy

As far as the formula is concerned: I programmed the LCH bcalc the same way that the manual says, and checked it with some beta breports. They were consistent, so id say that the 1:1 value thing actually IS correct. The reason you can get more value then you lose, is because of the Situation B i stated earlier.

No, it only works 1:1 on the "standard" situation. As you mentioned, in the situation B (or C) it can work very different. This could actually happen pretty often if you tried, and it's probably quite doable to score decent value gains for it. It just requires some work. Nevertheless, if you're saying that zikonians dying 1:1 value per value consistently, then I'll just have to say that as we've all seen through examples given by (not the person making bcalcs) the person who coded the thing, the scenario that breaks the "rule" exists, in given example up to +52%. Which I definately missed not having played beta.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

By introducing an XP type system, it becomes far less profitable to bash those right at the limit, and as such move the fights to a more even level, which should reduce bashing at a universal level. Sure, it wont prevent it, but the present system which rewards bashing is kinda silly.

^^^

Thats what I meant, was half asleep at time of writing.

[rain]

Zik might be the worst race this round. Can´t tell yet. Sometimes ppl playing a certain race make it strong or weak, it´s a fact. Though, manual said ´1:1 VALUE CAP´ and I changed from zik because of this. In fact there IS NOT a 1:1 value cap, am I right? A lot others changed from zik too and now regret it. For once, PA Team admit that you fcked it up big time, do an announce on overview like hundreads others that you did. You fcked it up again. And dont give me bullshit like ´we´re doing it for free´ cause it wont work this time. You are what you are to make things right, if you cant do it, fck off, few ppl will miss you, let others in charge, others who can do the job right. Yes I´m pissed and I have all the reasons in the world to be. You better change the battle engine now and make it fcking 1:1, I don´t care round started. If you noticed there are bugs(and there were bugs 1 day before start) you shouldn´t have started the round in the first place. And all those ppl from PA Team who posted before, don´t make it look like we players are the bad guys, it wasn´t us the ones fcking up things, IT WAS YOU. Yes, we´re the clients, we´re the ones buying the shit you´re selling. And your pathetic apologies won´t even make it this time. You really suck eod.

[voodoo]

dont worry rain, its just the De attacks paying off, tahts why there are so many ziks in t10.
give it a couple of weeks id say.

[Forest]

rain what a pathetic rant.
If you were unable or too lazy to check stats properly and play beta's then hard cheese.
Yes it is unfortunate and could of been done better, but ffs its a cheap game and we are adults here.
Make the best of it and stop whining.

[rain]

Originally Posted by Forest

rain what a pathetic rant.
If you were unable or too lazy to check stats properly and play beta's then hard cheese.
Yes it is unfortunate and could of been done better, but ffs its a cheap game and we are adults here.
Make the best of it and stop whining.

Or what? Get lost, punk, I know when I´m right and when I´m wrong. This time I am right and I choose to express my anger here on forums. You´re no better than this, you have plenty of posts like this one of mine, so go back to your corner, you adult beta freak.

[jerome]

the plus side to all of this is, this round might just be awful enough to force us all to quit

[rain]

Originally Posted by jerome

the plus side to all of this is, this round might just be awful enough to force us all to quit

hopefully

[voodoo]

forest he is not pathetic. you are for adopting this condescending attitude.
he is perfectly entitled to whine and rant and complain all he wants. as the manual was poorly written and announcements never made. and an excuse was never given. i am still waiting for an apology from the PAteam btw as to how poorly zik stealing was explained.
keizari made this point as well, in an even less diplomatic manner.

so shuv it.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by jerome

the plus side to all of this is, this round might just be awful enough to force us all to quit

150 ticks and im sick of it already :/

[Forest]

Originally Posted by voodoo

forest he is not pathetic.

Anyone who need sto put an expletive every word to get his point across is pathetic.
Its easy to state we are customers, but if you went into a shop and behaved like that, chances are you will be kicked out the shop, or the worker is just gonna smack you in the mouth.

Just because its online doesnt mean people should behave in a way other than they would in rl.

Yes I have complained, on forums and irc. But there is a big difference between complaining and being plain abusive.
Infact, had that been posted as an ingame message rain would of been closed for it.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Forest

Anyone who need sto put an expletive every word to get his point across is pathetic.
Its easy to state we are customers, but if you went into a shop and behaved like that, chances are you will be kicked out the shop, or the worker is just gonna smack you in the mouth.

Just because its online doesnt mean people should behave in a way other than they would in rl.

Yes I have complained, on forums and irc. But there is a big difference between complaining and being plain abusive.
Infact, had that been posted as an ingame message rain would of been closed for it.

Just warned. Albeit, the shop allegory is a sucky one. If you go to a shop, and purchase a product, and the product doesn't match the description given to it, you'll be able to return it for a refund. In Planetarion terms, the EULA is practically formed as "once you've paid, you've paid. we can for example choose not to provide the product at all (ie. not to run the round at all), you're just screwed". This is the attitude that I despise. Sure, refunds in these situations are childish and stupid, but running the game solely on the basis of "we do whatever we want, you bugger" is kind of sad.

The way stats were handled this round was, in my opinion, the very bottom of it all. I was about to post a poll of which rounds' (of the recent) were most liked, and I'm willing to bet these dig a hole deep enough to beat tuxed0's stats (yeah, the guy who eXilition-shoutcasted his statistics). Sure. Game balance is over-rated. And statistical balance perhaps too. But it's something a majority of the long-term paying customer base care about.

Edit. I would still like to hear how zikonians die 1:1 as a rule, instead of the million exception scenarios there are present (which are very valid especially early round). I'm waiting for a certain someone to explain it to me, or just give in to the fact that the manual really needs a bit of a revamp on the point where it describes how zikonian works. Funny enough, with all this rant regarding the topic, the manual still stands as it stands.

Originally Posted by Remy

As far as the formula is concerned: I programmed the LCH bcalc the same way that the manual says, and checked it with some beta breports. They were consistent, so id say that the 1:1 value thing actually IS correct.

As long as there are situations present where you can reach actual 1:1,5 situations that is incorrect. You're a programmer, so you're probably familiar with maths. And after all, you are arguing against a game admin saying zikonians do not necessarily lose (as a non-native English speaker, I assume lose is a synonym for die in game mechanics) ships on 1:1 value ratio. If I'm misunderstanding because of my lack of English skills, I apologize. A major share of the players aren't native speakers, so the explanations could then be made a little clearer for the likes of myself and rain.

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Also, it means if you're stealing more value than you have then you don't lose at a 1:1 value ratio:

For example, a fleet of 10 Buccaneers steals 9 Tarantulas. 165k is stealing 252k, which is an extra 52% or so of it's value.

Originally Posted by Manual

Steal ships die at a 1:1 value (resource for resource) when stealing other ships.

Logics: Steal ships die at 1:1 value. "You don't lose at 1:1 value ratio". Conflict.
A layman or an ignorant person not present in the beta might have imagined the stealing and smashing tarants stops when each buccaneer has stolen it's limit of value. This is one present scenario out of a lot of possible scenarios where value gains through the fact that zikonians have now very high damage per cost ratings is possible. Imagine how funny situations zikonian per zikonian combats can cause, with salvage being added. I suppose thieves can do it (zero-loss) to more clipper-heavy zikonian destroyer fleets (a scenario likely to happen through fleetcatches and defence missions). Maradeurs are well armed to it against xandathrii frigates. Imagine combinations of cathaar and zikonian ships attacking, an amount of cathaars first disabling the target, and a well calculated amount of zikonians stealing - in a fleetcatch or so. To sum up, the majority of the scenarios where the PAX traditional zik format was used for it's most evident gains (the famous fighter-corvette zik/cath combinations) are still very plausible. Now, I agree, if you say that I'm stupid not to have realized this before appoco's explanation came up after tickstart. I wasn't paying attention beyond what was announced, and I didn't participate in beta. But if you say it's good and okay to announce it like it stands, I find it funny that two players that are probably above average in their "playing skills" as with what comes to their rank histories, have utterly failed to realize how the zikonian really works this round until well after tickstart.

[Forest]

I agree it is wrong, and I have complained as loud as anyone on the matter. And I have even enquired to support about refunds.
I am sure if anyone actually pushed the barriers and had the money to back it up, that they could get refunds. The servers and company is british based and I am sure a court would find the eula against the law. However, this wouldnt help as Jolt would most likely just drop planetarion and shut it down.

My arguments against rain are not that the 1:1 is ok, but that he just spilled a load of abuse that frankly is unacceptable in my eyes. And it wasnt even directed at me.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

YOU KNOW WHAT
I'm going to be negrepped, deleted, banned, and maimed for posting this

BUT


SUCK COCK

yeah. rain was so abusive you felt the urget o reply to his post and call him pathetic.
indeed
forest go back in ur corner pls

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by rain

Or what? Get lost, punk, I know when I´m right and when I´m wrong.

You're always wrong.
Even I realised that it's not goign to be at a 1:1 ratio because it's rounded as ships aren't divisible, PAteam should have said something about it but it was fairly easy to realise.
Stop being retarded with the constant abuse thrown at the PAteam, Appoco does a great job and isn't getting anything out of it other than abuse from you.

[jerome]

no, the pateam ****ed up here - it doesn't matter whether it was that 1:1 is stupid or whether they were shit in describing it's implementation (as keiz has proven time and time again) end of discussion really.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by jerome

no, the pateam ****ed up here - it doesn't matter whether it was that 1:1 is stupid or whether they were shit in describing it's implementation (as keiz has proven time and time again) end of discussion really.

I concur, PAteam did mess up (as I said), but constantly giving them grief over it is a pretty shit thing to do.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by _Kila_

I concur, PAteam did mess up (as I said), but constantly giving them grief over it is a pretty shit thing to do.

you think? they should get it kicked up their asses all the time for doing wrong then maybe they manage to do stuff right and they can sit as normal ppl again

[Sjor]

what i think its funny
imagine a zik cr fleet fleetcatching an etd fr fleet

you as dc have only bucs for def
now u have two choices

send the bucs and "steal" the cr that were about to die anyway or leave it and use the bucs for def elsewhere

in that case the cr zik pwns and can land agasint 10000000000 bucs

[Chika]

explain that further

[Wandows]

Simple really, the Marauders would die upon stealing the FR fleet. But due to them having the same initiative as the Buccaneer, the dying Marauders would infact be stolen instead by the Buccaneers. And since the Marauders would die already anyway after they stole the FR, it effectively doesn't matter for the attacker. So you'd get the Buccaneers dying after they steal the (dying) Marauders who just stole the FR. Question remains ofcourse whether a pure Marauder FC fleet would be any good to succeed in a fleetcatch (as any flak CR there will get stolen by the Buccaneers and add to the losses for the attacker).

[Sjor]

seems the best zik fleet has as less zik ship in it as possible (clippers exl.)

[Remy]

Hehe, Keiz is impatient, he negreps me for not responding anymore. I think i explained enough tho. The rule is that ziks die 1:1 value, with a quirck.

What else do you need explained .....

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Remy

Hehe, Keiz is impatient, he negreps me for not responding anymore. I think i explained enough tho. The rule is that ziks die 1:1 value, with a quirck.

Now that's polite and mature, and the reason why there's an option to make the rep anonymous - so certain babies can't view it. I don't mind though. There have been people agreeing with me on this, and the game administrator has stated it otherwise. And the quirck isn't all that small if you plan on taking use of it. Regardless, it is there, and it definately isn't stated in the manual, which is (you are still support team or not?) the support team's duty to sort in.

I would neg rep you again solely for making a post to whine about your negrep, but I can't pass you any more rep until I've gone around a circle again, and that probably takes a while.

[jerome]

why can multihunters see anonymous rep...?

[Tietäjä]

No, they can't. I signed my rep. I usually do that. I just didn't expect it to result in a public cry over it. Definately not from a multihunter that is publicly arguing to what an administrator has elaborated regarding game mechanics.

[Remy]

I mentioned the negrep solely to demonstrate how useless it is. I dont give a rats behind about it. But this isnt a discussion about repping, so i'll go back to the quesiotn i asked in that post, and which you seem to avoid:

.....

I think i explained enough tho. The rule is that ziks die 1:1 value, with a quirck.

What else do you need explained .....

[Red-]

Ziks are boring to play this round.

You can only go defensive zik - if you attack and steal you loose value.

Also as its no longer possible to gain value on stealing and you constantly have to rebuild the same ships with an advantage and you get a ton of different ships it kinda ruins the experience.

And then on top of that we got this ultra short round where we barely get to do research till done before its over - Its not really working imo.

Make ziks gain 30% salvage on attacking too - then we are talking again.

[Nazqil]

Okey round is almost over now ( two weeks left ? ) I am playing as Zik and I have to say that somehow someone success to screw up stats!

Yes PA-team likes to create new race with Xan ships prices and Ter firepower + armors ( a.k.a Etd ) Why do you guys create new race if old race`s stats sucks ?

You guys want to see how all Zik players give up after this round and there wont be any Zik in r21 ? It is also nice so pay credit when you cant enjoy for playing ( why ? ) because Zik have lost their chance to play as equal with other races !!!

For round 21 -> 1:1 stealing ratio is from my ... ( brown and dark place )*wink* *wink*


-Nazqil-

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

I would neg rep you again solely for making a post to whine about your negrep, but I can't pass you any more rep until I've gone around a circle again, and that probably takes a while.

its ok bro i got your back :circlejerk: