View Poll Results: Should structure killers be modified for R32?
|
Yes
|
|
56 |
38.10% |
No
|
|
72 |
48.98% |
I don't care
|
|
19 |
12.93% |
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:12
|
#1
|
Planetarion Forum Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
|
Should SKs be changed for R32?
At the request of JBG I have put up this poll.
A Yes vote means they stay as they currently are in the beta stats (structure killers are in the same class as pods).
A No vote means JBG will put each race's sk in an eta class where they don't have a roiding fleet as they have been in previous rounds (bar for zik where JBG will make them bs class).
Poll will expire when Appoco decides to finalize the stats.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10
#strategy
Last edited by Monroe; 19 Jun 2009 at 20:33.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:16
|
#2
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I voted no - not because I don't want to see SKs in the game but because I don't want to see them in every attack fleet.
I really don't want to see "lowbie" planets reduced to rubble.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:16
|
#3
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I'm going to consider I don't care votes as yes votes for the regard. I'm going to do this because I'm an asshole.
Actually it'll be because I think apathetic people could do with something new in their lives. But if you don't agree with that, refer to my second sentence in this thread.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:17
|
#4
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
<3 SK's
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:17
|
#5
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
LOL
I just hope that this version of the poll stays up a bit longer than the first two. ;-)
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:19
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
NO!!! it would meen asc distwhore and kill everyone elses scanners.
people scan so they can have a round off but still be in the game.
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:20
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 30
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
SK for attack fleets is just idiotic, just cause u kill every scanner that is scanning for an easy round if he / she has to be on all the time ppl will just dont play instead of low active round and we lose lots of the scanners in the game with also the risk them not coming back
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:21
|
#8
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
What the ****. You people are insane.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:26
|
#9
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
and people call me stupid
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:28
|
#10
|
optimist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 263
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
and people call me stupid
|
__________________
*scendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
Your attempts to be e-cool have been noted and laughed off as terrible.
|
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:30
|
#11
|
xXx
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 114
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
killing structures easier, as thats what this means, will only make the common player (none active players, small BG, small Alliance p's) be destroyed faster and drop out of the game. Making the universe even smaller. Im sure you don't want your farms to quit the game even faster, JBG?
The idea of addding new features is good, but this one - not so good- imo.
Rest of the stats look interesting, looking forward to test them in the game.
__________________
---------------------------------------
Introducing AndroX -The Most Powerful Libido Booster for Men and Women
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:30
|
#12
|
Gabba gabba hey hey
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 212
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
and people call me stupid
|
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:32
|
#13
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndroX
killing structures easier, as thats what this means, will only make the common player (none active players, small BG, small Alliance p's) be destroyed faster and drop out of the game. Making the universe even smaller. Im sure you don't want your farms to quit the game even faster, JBG?
The idea of addding new features is good, but this one - not so good- imo.
Rest of the stats look interesting, looking forward to test them in the game.
|
Yes, THINK OF THE SMALL INACTIVES!!!! Its nothing to do with the fact that actives dont want to lose costly constructions.. but the 140+ construction inactives will quit the game if they get SK'd...
Seriously, a new player losing his fleet and being roided down to nothing.. is a much bigger issue but i dont hear you advocating the removal of kill ships.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:33
|
#14
|
Canadian to the Core
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,004
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
+1 vote for "No"
-1 vote for "Yes"
Because the question was worded retardedly and reading is hard :S
__________________
[DTA] Forever
r2-5 [LOST] - r6 [Instinct] - r7-8 [Titans] -r9 [Olympians] -DC
r10 [Elysium] -DC - r11-12 [MISTU] -DC/IA - r13-15 [Angels] - DC
r18-19 [eXi]
<Intermission>
r31-32 [CT] - r33-35 [DLR] - r36 [VsN] - r37 [???]
r45-46 [FAnG]
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:34
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
I voted no - not because I don't want to see SKs in the game but because I don't want to see them in every attack fleet.
|
Apparently someone (Monroe?) changed the question, you now have voted to keep SK's as they are. The poll now is exactly the opposite as Monroe says in his post.
Great strategy, I'm going to put up a vote "should we keep pods in the game" and after everyone has voted yes I'm gonna change it to "should Patrikc be king of the world!"
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:35
|
#16
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
This is hilarious, people can't even vote for what they want.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:36
|
#17
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
SK's are part of the game and a valid tactic in war , vited yes for greater justice
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:36
|
#18
|
xXx
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 114
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Yes, THINK OF THE SMALL INACTIVES!!!! Its nothing to do with the fact that actives dont want to lose costly constructions.. but the 140+ construction inactives will quit the game if they get SK'd...
Seriously, a new player losing his fleet and being roided down to nothing.. is a much bigger issue but i dont hear you advocating the removal of kill ships.
|
This is another thing indeed, specialy with that new CAP crap that PA introduces this round, and it just tops the list of why you should NOT do it
Im sure Pete wants to earn money with this game, and thats with getting new players that stick around and pay for their account aswell as old players that stick around and pay.
__________________
---------------------------------------
Introducing AndroX -The Most Powerful Libido Booster for Men and Women
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:37
|
#19
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
If that's true he seems to have changed it back. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
A Yes vote means they stay as they currently are in the beta stats (structure killers are in the same class as pods).
A No vote means JBG will put each race's sk in an eta class where they don't have a roiding fleet as they have been in previous rounds (bar for zik where JBG will make them bs class).
|
For the avoidance of doubt - I'm voting against having SKs in the same class as pods.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:38
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
no for SKs in att fleets please
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:42
|
#21
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
SK's are part of the game and a valid tactic in war , vited yes for greater justice
|
Yes, SKs are part of the game - and a valid tactic. But I believe that the use of them should be a deliberate decision - they shouldn't just be part of your everyday attack fleet.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:44
|
#22
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
Yes, SKs are part of the game - and a valid tactic. But I believe that the use of them should be a deliberate decision - they shouldn't just be part of your everyday attack fleet.
|
You have to order them separately. They are in no sense an intelligent addition to your pure roiding attack fleet as their armour and e/r absolutely sucks so they're more likely to lose you more score when landing than the same investment in other ships. Unless you're zik and happen to steal them and then they just stay in your fleet it's always a deliberate decision to get them.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:46
|
#23
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
If they're the same class as the rest of your attack fleet then they'll be (to some extent) flakked by it. The end result will be that if you have them then you'll send them. This isn't something that I want to see encouraged.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:48
|
#24
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
If they're the same class as the rest of your attack fleet then they'll be (to some extent) flakked by it. The end result will be that if you have them then you'll send them. This isn't something that I want to see encouraged.
|
But it's still a conscious decision to get them. And in fact over the last few rounds most attacks have been fr/de or cr/bs and sks have been naturally flakked in them anyways. The only real difference I see this round is a psychological one.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:49
|
#25
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
god if it makes people feel better then make it so you must have a heavy fac and siege res to build them
crying over milk that MIGHT be spilt is a bit retarded
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:52
|
#26
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
god if it makes people feel better then make it so you must have a heavy fac and siege res to build them
|
You do. If anyone has voted no in this thread and didn't realise this I'll probably just cancel the whole vote and raise the effectiveness of sks while I'm at it.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:56
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
You do. If anyone has voted no in this thread and didn't realise this I'll probably just cancel the whole vote and raise the effectiveness of sks while I'm at it.
|
Actually, it uses the factories of the shipclass. I was playing speedgame the other day, and while it told me it was going to use Heavy Factories, my Behemoths (De SK) were ordered with Medium Factories.
Still, Siege Hulls will be a pain for Xans.
And it will suck for Etd as well, heh.
Also, if my calculations are correct, it takes 150k or more of each resources in SKs to kill 1 construction?
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 20:56
|
#28
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
But it's still a conscious decision to get them. And in fact over the last few rounds most attacks have been fr/de or cr/bs and sks have been naturally flakked in them anyways. The only real difference I see this round is a psychological one.
|
Agreed - it's a conscious decision to get them - but once you have got them then you'll always use them. Previously they were a different class - so they were just an extra target for defenders and in many cases they were sitting ducks. Most attacks in the last few rounds haven't been Fr/De or Cr/BS they've been mainly a single class - and SKs haven't been flakked.
For use in alliance wars, SKs are a legimate weapon. Adding them to the attack fleet of a partner (or partners) is fine - and it hurts the target if they land. For use in everyday roiding attacks, SKs are inappropriate and cause unnecessary (and unavoidable) damage.
I'm sure you remember the old arguments against building PDS - you can't run so if the attack gets through they die. The only way to avoid this (unless you were a top alliance def whore) was not to build any. Unfortunately this solution is impractical in the case of structures.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 21:02
|
#29
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
Actually, it uses the factories of the shipclass. I was playing speedgame the other day, and while it told me it was going to use Heavy Factories, my Behemoths (De SK) were ordered with Medium Factories.
Still, Siege Hulls will be a pain for Xans.
And it will suck for Etd as well, heh.
|
That's really bizzare. I don't remember this from previous rounds at all. It might be a bug as I certainly haven't heard anything about it being changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
Agreed - it's a conscious decision to get them - but once you have got them then you'll always use them.
|
This was pretty much the case anyways though. If only because people don't like leaving ships sitting at home.
Quote:
Previously they were a different class - so they were just an extra target for defenders and in many cases they were sitting ducks. Most attacks in the last few rounds haven't been Fr/De or Cr/BS they've been mainly a single class - and SKs haven't been flakked.
|
To be honest most attacks that I've seen going around have been composed of both fr/de and cr/bs fleets.
Quote:
For use in alliance wars, SKs are a legimate weapon. Adding them to the attack fleet of a partner (or partners) is fine - and it hurts the target if they land. For use in everyday roiding attacks, SKs are inappropriate and cause unnecessary (and unavoidable) damage.
|
Holy **** it's a war game. Every bit of damage I do to anyone who isn't me or someone who can help me is beneficial for me.
Quote:
I'm sure you remember the old arguments against building PDS - you can't run so if the attack gets through they die. The only way to avoid this (unless you were a top alliance def whore) was not to build any. Unfortunately this solution is impractical in the case of structures.
|
PDS was a massive resource sink. Constructions are not comparable, especially for newbies who don't build that many of them anyways.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 21:18
|
#30
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Holy **** it's a war game. Every bit of damage I do to anyone who isn't me or someone who can help me is beneficial for me.
|
That's a rather short sighted view. Everyone who quits the game is one target less for us all next round.
And yes, PDS was expensive but so are constructions - especially the later ones (this change won't only affect small players).
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 21:43
|
#31
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBG
Holy **** it's a war game. Every bit of damage I do to anyone who isn't me or someone who can help me is beneficial for me.
|
The thing is, noone wants to be SK'd, so a lot of people have the mentality of "if I don't use them, you don't use them". The only reason people don't (usually) use SKs is simply because they wouldn't want it to happen to them.
But it's exactly the same with roids, yet everyone is STILL using pods! So really, I don't see why they shouldn't be standard.
However, if it turns out there will be a LOT of SKing this round, maybe it's an idea to increase Construction Output? Or salvage for Constructions lost? (too early to tell now anyway)
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 21:51
|
#32
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I voted a big Yes.
SK's are underutilised and have been pretty much since they were created, so anything that makes them more useful is good.
As JBG mentioned already, they have pretty terrible stats anyways, so using them in normal roiding fleets is pretty retarded.
Yes, getting SK'd is annoying, but as Patrikc said, so is losing roids. It's a part of the game, and people need to get over it and stop whining about getting their structures obliterated.
I also thought I was given control over sorting out the stats, so I'm somewhat failing to see the point of this poll since ultimately it's my decision
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
19 Jun 2009, 22:14
|
#33
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
If you use them in every attack, you'll land a lot fewer risky landings, because they'll just keep dying and.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 00:39
|
#34
|
This Space for Rent
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 583
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
SK's are underutilised and have been pretty much since they were created, so anything that makes them more useful is good.
...
I also thought I was given control over sorting out the stats, so I'm somewhat failing to see the point of this poll since ultimately it's my decision
|
i thought the point of stats this round was to help new players be able to understand them and compete? you have also made comments related to wanting new players, but not at the cost of current players, and quite frankly i don't see how this helps that.
__________________
When in doubt, blame Ascendancy.
#pastats
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 02:11
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
In a small universe with planets multi waved by team ups + piggys, having SKs in every attack fleet will be a disaster. Such a decision should be made by PA team because it can impact the future of the game.
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 03:36
|
#36
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
But it's exactly the same with roids, yet everyone is STILL using pods! So really, I don't see why they shouldn't be standard.
|
If you lose roids you have a choice - to pay to initiate more or to go and steal them back. With constructions you have to pay to rebuild.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 04:32
|
#37
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaejii
i thought the point of stats this round was to help new players be able to understand them and compete? you have also made comments related to wanting new players, but not at the cost of current players, and quite frankly i don't see how this helps that.
|
A fair point.
I think this is being thrown out of proportion somewhat though. Look at the stats. The SK's A/C and D/C are absolutely ridiculous. They're horribly easy to kill, and terribly inefficient. You've got to be very interested in killing someone's structures (more so than capping roids) to even bother with them.
Structure Killers in a fleet inherently bring more attention to that particular attack, so the person under attack will work that much harder to get defense. With salvage being upped next round making defense "profitable" again, and given the expensive cost of SK's, this is a free trip to the buffet for defenders.
They are also very expensive relative to the damage they do, and the armor they have. This, coupled with my previous point, still makes them mission specific.
The new roidcap makes hitting smaller planets (where solo attacks come into play) largely unprofitable anyways, so taking points 1 and 2 into consideration also makes adding any more unfavorable variables into the equation less desirable. Players just want the roids in these types of situations, not to necessarily kill fleet or structures.
This does, however, make waging war far more damaging to hostile planets. Covert ops can be stopped with an investment in security centers, guards, and population settings. Immunity isn't hard to accomplish, and effectively nerfs any hostile intent towards a planet's structures. You don't just want to stunt a hostile planet's growth, you want to kill their fleet, and disadvantage their planet's infrastructure. It makes sense tactically and strategically.
I doubt we'll see a widespread use of these ships in everyday attack fleets for these reasons, but I do think we'll see more use of them (and rightfully so) between alliances at war.
With most "features" in Planetarion though, there's effective "counters". Perhaps what we should look at instead, is salvage for lost structures. It makes losing expensive (especially late-game!) structures not a total loss, but more of a setback.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 05:40
|
#38
|
This Space for Rent
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 583
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
If you lose roids you have a choice - to pay to initiate more or to go and steal them back. With constructions you have to pay to rebuild.
|
(pay with time and resources - the time being the larger factor)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
Structure Killers in a fleet inherently bring more attention to that particular attack, so the person under attack will work that much harder to get defense. With salvage being upped next round making defense "profitable" again, and given the expensive cost of SK's, this is a free trip to the buffet for defenders.
...
This does, however, make waging war far more damaging to hostile planets. Covert ops can be stopped with an investment in security centers, guards, and population settings. Immunity isn't hard to accomplish, and effectively nerfs any hostile intent towards a planet's structures. You don't just want to stunt a hostile planet's growth, you want to kill their fleet, and disadvantage their planet's infrastructure. It makes sense tactically and strategically.
|
this is the reason the opposition to fi skillers is so pronounced. two races have good ally def ships vs fico (terran ones are junk and zik are low init steal). i've said it in #pastats and in pm's to people, but it seems that the people that matter aren't listening or comprehending - the way the stats are structured with the ship classes and holes it only helps fortress galaxies, big alliances, and def whores. while the new players will be able to cap asteriods, it will offset the value based capping making them able to keep closer to the curve so that the veteran players can still bash them for roids, thus offsetting what the new rule was meant to fix. everyone else will either be playing roidswap or defending the bigger planets in their alliances all round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
With most "features" in Planetarion though, there's effective "counters". Perhaps what we should look at instead, is salvage for lost structures. It makes losing expensive (especially late-game!) structures not a total loss, but more of a setback.
|
this could be a move in a good direction, but there is no way to compensate for the time factor where terrans can rebuild in 4 ticks (which isn't a big deal), but cathaar would take 8 ticks or more (which can be a big deal).
__________________
When in doubt, blame Ascendancy.
#pastats
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 05:40
|
#39
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
If you lose roids you have a choice - to pay to initiate more or to go and steal them back. With constructions you have to pay to rebuild.
|
and with roids, you pay to have them instantly and you choose the amount.
Buildings can only be built one by one and it take several ticks to get 1.
Basically you lose constructions faster than you can rebuild them which is a major flaw I think.
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 05:50
|
#40
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I'm not disagreeing with the points you've made Zaejii and Makhil. It's just unfortunate that we're crossing this bridge now, rather than several weeks ago where I would rather be :/
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 06:35
|
#41
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
I also thought I was given control over sorting out the stats, so I'm somewhat failing to see the point of this poll since ultimately it's my decision
|
That sounds fantastic, another PA team person that wants to go against what seems to be a large percentage of the pa players that dislike structurekillers, thus alienating a large group within the community. And people ask themselves why PA is losing players
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 06:53
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 30
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Personally I don't see the big problem. SKs are part of the game and there is no way that people can honestly think that if getting SKd will make someone quit that something else random happening isn't just as likely to do it.
As for the problem - what I don't like is the idea that, according to this poll, if the consensus is to change SKs to not be in the roiding class, that it will be in a slower eta class. Why should someone who wants to use them not be able to as it will slow their whole fleet down. Take Xans for example, if its not a fi sk, then at worst it should be a co one. There is absolutely no use in having a cr SK for a fi/co Xan.
The same also holds true for other races. A Terran who is going fr/de eta isn't going to get too much use out of a bs/cr SK, without building some sort of fleet around it (which would mean it was for the sole purpose of SKing). Ideally there would be a sk for each eta pod a race has, in the opposite class. Ter DE pod, fr sk. Cath cr pod, bs sk etc. This would limit their use somewhat for solo stuff but still be usable, while allowing more use for ally teamups/wars etc.
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 07:00
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Really. Is this thread a decoy for rhe potential failure that is r32?
Im begging you. Please dont make the game easier to play. Youre ruining the game for intelligent players, and making it idiot proof. PLEASE DONT DO IT D:
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 09:47
|
#44
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
I also thought I was given control over sorting out the stats, so I'm somewhat failing to see the point of this poll since ultimately it's my decision
|
Yeah okay. My decision is going to be based on the poll though!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 10:52
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
JBG do you see ETD as being potentially OP with the current stat set? Also, do you believe your set superior to previosly supposed ones?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 11:09
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 151
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]
JBG do you see ETD as being potentially OP with the current stat set? Also, do you believe your set superior to previosly supposed ones?
|
What does OP mean? Forgive my ignorance
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 11:17
|
#47
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
You don't get any XP for killing structures anyway so I doubt many people will build them except for tactical missions to **** up another alliance/player.
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 11:20
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
What does OP mean? Forgive my ignorance
|
Good.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 12:34
|
#49
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]
Youre ruining the game for intelligent players, and making it idiot proof.
|
You should be happy about that
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 12:57
|
#50
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
The thing is, noone wants to be SK'd, so a lot of people have the mentality of "if I don't use them, you don't use them". The only reason people don't (usually) use SKs is simply because they wouldn't want it to happen to them.
|
If using SKs makes it more likely people use them against you, that's an incentive against using them. Simultaneously, there's an pro-SK incentive, because using them against people who are already hostile to you anyway (say, they're in an alliance you're at war with) doesn't really harm you. If people use these two opposite incentives to decide whether to use SKs or not, then that's exactly the kind of thing I'd like to see in PA. Easy to learn, hard to master.
That said, a lot depends on there being a sufficient risk that using SKs against random planets will cost you in the long run, so perhaps it would be an interesting idea to raise the bash limit for fleets with SKs in them, or make it so that sending SKs reduces roid cap. Opinions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
That sounds fantastic, another PA team person that wants to go against what seems to be a large percentage of the pa players that dislike structurekillers, thus alienating a large group within the community. And people ask themselves why PA is losing players
|
On the other hand, the average PA player is utterly clueless. I think it balances out! So far I've only seen one person with good arguments against this whole SK thing, the rest of you are just protecting your own skins.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Last edited by Monroe; 20 Jun 2009 at 15:04.
Reason: Language
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10.
| |