Planetarion Forums

Duncan · 24 Aug 2005, 19:40

Basically set up a point system to find out how many times planets land on others with 40%-60% of their value. And then list the top ones.

something like:
40-46% 2 points
47-53% 1 point
54-60% 0.5 points

Might prove to be interesting.

furball · 24 Aug 2005, 20:58

Interesting, yet utterly worthless in comparison to so many other suggestions that need PA Team's 'valuable coding time'™.

barney · 24 Aug 2005, 21:38

would be hilarious tho imo

paolo · 24 Aug 2005, 21:50

Wouldn't it be sort of a top50 attackers? someone who 2 fleets 50-64% gets the same amount of score as a 1 fleet 47-53%
Couldn't we do a % top 50? like the avg of the alliances:

planet - # attacks - bashing %
1:1:1 - 30 - 60%

Another game (forgot which one) had a honour system in % next to their planet. You could attack everyone you'd like, but your honour % would go down if you'd attack under 40%.
We could do something like that, but could give a penalty if you attack (for example 5 times) under the bash-limit and have your fleet grounded for x ticks.

Smudge · 24 Aug 2005, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Interesting, yet utterly worthless in comparison to so many other suggestions that need PA Team's 'valuable coding time'™.

Quite honestly, funniest post today

Ultimate Newbie · 25 Aug 2005, 03:51

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to furball again.

Duncan · 25 Aug 2005, 05:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Interesting, yet utterly worthless in comparison to so many other suggestions that need PA Team's 'valuable coding time'™.

Pretty much applies to most suggestions that would add to the game.

I don't see how this would be a big coding effort tbh, and is alot more feasible then most.

also , well done on insulting an idea and the PA team with one witty sentence. you're right, noone should bother with this silly sugestions forum when the bare minimum in game development is taken.

Phil^ · 25 Aug 2005, 11:48

hmm. might encourage vigilante justice. not too sure about what i think on this one

Veedeejem! · 25 Aug 2005, 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

hmm. might encourage vigilante justice. not too sure about what i think on this one

Where's Charles Bronson when you need him?

Appocomaster · 26 Aug 2005, 09:13

I'd prefer making it so that you get negative XP if you hit anyone below half your value.

i.e. xp = number of roids captured * 10 * [ (Target_value - Own_value/2)/(Own_value*0.75)]

so, 100 roids from someone 2 times your score gives:

100*10* [ (1.5x/0.75x)] = 2000 xp, as before
hitting someone half your size gives 0 xp
hitting someone 40% of your size gives:
100*10*[ (-0.1/0.75) ]
= -133xp (-5k score)

Obviously, it's not a huge amount, but it does mean that XP is scaled differently, and it means you have to hit bigger valued planets than before to get the same XP. This does give an advantage to those races who are move value-based, but that can be taken up as a stat issue.

MAdnRisKy · 26 Aug 2005, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Interesting, yet utterly worthless in comparison to so many other suggestions that need PA Team's 'valuable coding time'™.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to furball again.

lokken · 26 Aug 2005, 11:31

If there is a hit limit, there is no such thing as 'bashing'

Kargool · 26 Aug 2005, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I'd prefer making it so that you get negative XP if you hit anyone below half your value.

i.e. xp = number of roids captured * 10 * [ (Target_value - Own_value/2)/(Own_value*0.75)]

so, 100 roids from someone 2 times your score gives:

100*10* [ (1.5x/0.75x)] = 2000 xp, as before
hitting someone half your size gives 0 xp
hitting someone 40% of your size gives:
100*10*[ (-0.1/0.75) ]
= -133xp (-5k score)

Obviously, it's not a huge amount, but it does mean that XP is scaled differently, and it means you have to hit bigger valued planets than before to get the same XP. This does give an advantage to those races who are move value-based, but that can be taken up as a stat issue.

Good idea, beef the punishment up abit more, and remove stealers

Smudge · 26 Aug 2005, 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

hmm. might encourage vigilante justice. not too sure about what i think on this one

and theres something wrong with that?

noah02 · 26 Aug 2005, 14:46

if its that bad a problem and its called 'bashing' then raise the ****ing limit ffs where does it stop....
So basically it will be the top 50 now coz the number 1 player can only attack ppl smaller than him so hes got to be 'bashing' all round.

SpaceLegend · 26 Aug 2005, 15:30

the problem with negative XP is, that it can happen that the planet is equal your value when you launch and 30% of your value just before you land.

flapjack · 26 Aug 2005, 15:53

A top 50 of bashers would be a good idea. Now if everybody was to immediatly start attacking the bashers (not bashing, just attacking) That would make bashing a lot less likely.

Obviously the #1 has to attack people with less then his score, but less then the suggest 65%? The higher you get, the slower the % changes and thus the more targets you have available within the bashing limits.