XP, stats et al.

[Appocomaster]

I know there have been several threads on this.
We have several options:
1) change the score / value / xp relationship
2) change the capture roid / xp relationship (i.e. the bravery factor)
3) add xp for defence
4) change the stats (increase damage / make them "more defensive" - usually I shoot people for saying this sort of thing)

I'm sure there's a few more that will be contributed.

Personally, i'm in favour of 3 and 4, with perhaps a slight tweak using 1 or 2.

I think XP should remain as a viable option for playing, especially less actively, but having planets that are much harder to take down and that are almost "parasites" on the higher-valued planets is in some ways detrimental to the game.

[furball]

3 is too abusable, there have been threads on this time and time again.
4 is still the best idea, since the 'problem' only exists because the race with the best armour does best as an XP whore this round. Change that and there will ne NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.

Otherwise we're just going to suffer from a total over-reaction and its myraid of consequences.

[Nadar]

If any: 4

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by furball

3 is too abusable, there have been threads on this time and time again.
4 is still the best idea, since the 'problem' only exists because the race with the best armour does best as an XP whore this round. Change that and there will ne NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.

Otherwise we're just going to suffer from a total over-reaction and its myraid of consequences.

I guess I didn't explain the XP for defence idea(s) that could be implemented.
These were mainly:
1) giving 2xp / tick for outgoing defence fleets (3xp/tick ingal)
2) giving 50xp*%value of defence fleet that's yours when you defend someone who has a hostile fleet incoming.

If you spend all round sending 3 fleets to defend your galaxy mate who has incoming and no one else is defending, that's 1272 ticks after protection. That's ~140 times you can send defence to a galaxy mate, getting XP 5/9 ticks = 2.1k xp. you land 140 times, that's 140*50=7000. That's a total of at most 10k xp, which is 600k score. If you do NOTHING ELSE.
It will mean those that defend more will probably rack up an extra 200k or so score. We could even jack up the 50 xp to 100xp when defending. Defence will be slightly more viable, and those that defend with fleets not doing anything may well get a few places come the end of the round.

I agree that implementing XP for defence in a similar manner to XP for attacking would be abuseable, and cause too many problems. It'd also most likely lead to huge stagnation, unless stats were even more attack-minded.

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by furball

3 is too abusable, there have been threads on this time and time again.
4 is still the best idea, since the 'problem' only exists because the race with the best armour does best as an XP whore this round. Change that and there will ne NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.

Otherwise we're just going to suffer from a total over-reaction and its myraid of consequences.

You don't have to be a terran to xp whore.

Tweaking the stats to make them more defensive could all end in tears if its over done. As long as its done carefully i think its a good idea.

Also lowering the effect that xp has e.g score = value + (xp*40) or something like that would make whoring less efficient but still feasable.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I guess I didn't explain the XP for defence idea(s) that could be implemented.
These were mainly:
1) giving 2xp / tick for outgoing defence fleets (3xp/tick ingal)
2) giving 50xp*%value of defence fleet that's yours when you defend someone who has a hostile fleet incoming.

If you spend all round sending 3 fleets to defend your galaxy mate who has incoming and no one else is defending, that's 1272 ticks after protection. That's ~140 times you can send defence to a galaxy mate, getting XP 5/9 ticks = 2.1k xp. you land 140 times, that's 140*50=7000. That's a total of at most 10k xp, which is 600k score. If you do NOTHING ELSE.
It will mean those that defend more will probably rack up an extra 200k or so score. We could even jack up the 50 xp to 100xp when defending. Defence will be slightly more viable, and those that defend with fleets not doing anything may well get a few places come the end of the round.

I agree that implementing XP for defence in a similar manner to XP for attacking would be abuseable, and cause too many problems. It'd also most likely lead to huge stagnation, unless stats were even more attack-minded.

The first idea is pointless, almost as bad as giving XP for scans (I get what, 60 XP/day?)
The second is quite good, but I'd want the figures to be refined.

What it doesn't do is solve the 'problem' that exists at the moment - at least, the problem with attacking XP that many people have. However, that particular problem remains solvable via basic stats manipulation and a return to paid PA.

[x-dANGEr]

I support 4. Adding XP for defence will just add another dimention to whine about and balance. Change the stats, making it 'hard' for people to land on people 2x their size. Not as easy as in this round 0-o

[furball]

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

You don't have to be a terran to xp whore.

Tweaking the stats to make them more defensive could all end in tears if its over done. As long as its done carefully i think its a good idea.

Also lowering the effect that xp has e.g score = value + (xp*40) or something like that would make whoring less efficient but still feasable.

Of course, Terrans are not the only XP-whoring race. However, they are the race that has 'broken' it - because of the armour of Terran BS (especially leviathons) and their ability to target every anti-BS kill ship.It's no wonder they do so well this round.

As for reducing XP's effect on score, we're supposed to be fixing the stats anyway so this isn't necessary. It was never a problem in the past, and it won't be in the future with fixed stats.

[Gate]

I support my idea on limiting score bonus you get from XP by your value. So a max of 4 or 5 scorein Xp for every score point in value.

Alternately, directly link gainable XP to your value... Something like (their value/your value)*(your value/100000)*60 = score bonus per roid. So if you're 200k value and roid someone 400k, you get 240 score per roid. If you're 1 mil and roid someone 2 mil, you get 1,200 score per roid, which is the cap. This could also be done on a sliding scale relative to universe average if need be, but I prefer the first idea.

I sincerely dislike 4. Firstly, it looks like a stagnation encourager, and secondly it screws with caths and ziks. If caths get their uber beefy EMP, their attacks become nigh unstoppable. If caths don't get uber beefy EMP, they get raped by every man and his dog (again). If ziks get uber stealing powers, then they can get immense value boosts. If they don't, they become a rape target...

[furball]

To clarify, I answered 4 as a general 'fix the stats' question - basically just sort out Terran. On re-reading, I don't want to make the stats uber-defensive. The problems at the moment are solely caused by Terran being too strong, and fixing this will fix it all quite nicely.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by furball

To clarify, I answered 4 as a general 'fix the stats' question - basically just sort out Terran. On re-reading, I don't want to make the stats uber-defensive. The problems at the moment are solely caused by Terran being too strong, and fixing this will fix it all quite nicely.

In general, stats need at least 1 0 loss alliance eta defence ship per attacking combo (or next best for fi/co). 2 is better, with 1 being the race the combo comes from.

Gate, as cypher has said and you have admitted, there is a flaw with storing resources and spending at the last minute to jump up in score.
Also, a change of your form is possibly the most coding.

furball, for xp for defence when landing would you want the figures going up or down? I added 2 as a random number for xp/tick that could easily be upped to 5 or even 10 but that would mean that while it's not as good as landing the defence fleet, you don't get nothing if the attacker recalls.

[The_Fish]

Why do we need to change much at all?

Just bring the stats to a more reasonable level, which makes it easier (but not too easy) to keep roids and value whores will once again rule.

But once again, the round isnt over yet, wait til its finished and can be better analysed before deciding.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

furball, for xp for defence when landing would you want the figures going up or down? I added 2 as a random number for xp/tick that could easily be upped to 5 or even 10 but that would mean that while it's not as good as landing the defence fleet, you don't get nothing if the attacker recalls.

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I guess I didn't explain the XP for defence idea(s) that could be implemented.
These were mainly:
1) giving 2xp / tick for outgoing defence fleets (3xp/tick ingal)
2) giving 50xp*%value of defence fleet that's yours when you defend someone who has a hostile fleet incoming.

The first idea: I wouldn't have it at all, it's as useless as giving XP for scans at that number and too abusable if it's any higher.

The second idea: abusable by people holding fake battles with 1 FI each to give themselves 50 XP. Any higher and it would be abused. At that level, not really worth it though (as a good thing or an option to be abused) - I'd say that people actually land defence about once every couple of days. That means that over an 8 week around (56 days), people would only get 34*50 XP from it = 1700 maximum XP (usually each round the best planets have 70000-100000 XP from attacking). You're also talking about only 100k score from this XP, which means little really - 50 ranks at the midpoint of the useful rankings (around the 500th mark).

To make this viable, give 200 XP per successful defence with a hostile fleet present. This takes into consideration the %value of defence fleet that a player might hold, as well as the frequency of landing a defence. Of course, abuse could become rife.

[lokken]

4 is the best option, although the tweak required is minor.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

We have several options:

Now I know the words 'mid round change' haven't been said, but 'this isn't a mid round change' hasn't been said either.

Please please please clarify correctly.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by sniborp

Now I know the words 'mid round change' haven't been said, but 'this isn't a mid round change' hasn't been said either.

Please please please clarify correctly.

This is not a mid round change and any suggested and implemented changes won't take effect until next round at the earliest.


better?

[Illuvatar]

add XP for Defence by giving the most XP to those defendes stunning/killing/stealing the most value of the attacker ships!

[Banned]

Originally Posted by furball

3 is too abusable, there have been threads on this time and time again.
4 is still the best idea, since the 'problem' only exists because the race with the best armour does best as an XP whore this round. Change that and there will ne NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.

Otherwise we're just going to suffer from a total over-reaction and its myraid of consequences.

You're wrong on both accounts. Straight up XP for a landed defense (say 50-200 per?) is not abusable, but balances out fleetusage slightly. At most a 3-fleet defender could earn ~50k XP by only launching defense fleets. Or perhaps 5-20 per eta a defense fleet is ticking to its mission.

As for 4, just look at the top10 and you'll see XP players that aren't terran.

[furball]

As I said, it would be possible for two players to co-operate and attack/defend each other in order to abuse it. And anything above ~10k XP is a major difference, assuming it's not re-calculated.

Originally Posted by Banned

As for 4, just look at the top10 and you'll see XP players that aren't terran.

Originally Posted by furball

since the 'problem' only exists because the race with the best armour does best as an XP whore this round. Change that and there will ne NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.

I've said time and time again that there's no problem with XP whoring. It's a cool tactic and exploits planets with poor value-based fleets. However, the strength of Terran this round has caused it to become too powerful. Standard XP whoring takes a lot of effort and doing it to the top 100 was more remarkable. You can't say the same this round.

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by furball

I've said time and time again that there's no problem with XP whoring. It's a cool tactic and exploits planets with poor value-based fleets. However, the strength of Terran this round has caused it to become too powerful. Standard XP whoring takes a lot of effort and doing it to the top 100 was more remarkable. You can't say the same this round.

I see XP whoring as a problem, completely and without exception. _WHORING_ is already negative. It's another word for abusive behavior. XP ain't a bad idea, and that it adds more offensive gameplay is nice, but it's simply not even close to being balanced, and I can, under no circumstances, say it is OK for an XP whore to be TOP 100.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

..and I can, under no circumstances, say it is OK for an XP whore to be TOP 100.

I think you're missing the point, balance doesn't mean that only those players with good galaxies/alliances (or particularly good playing styles) finish t100. Variation is a good thing okay .

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

I see XP whoring as a problem, completely and without exception. _WHORING_ is already negative. It's another word for abusive behavior. XP ain't a bad idea, and that it adds more offensive gameplay is nice, but it's simply not even close to being balanced, and I can, under no circumstances, say it is OK for an XP whore to be TOP 100.

Everyone now refers to the "classic" way of playing as "value whoring". Please don't get so caught up in semantics.

[Phil^]

the main problem with xp is that it cant be destroyed in the same way value is.
Value whores can be tackled with numbers, XP whores are there to stay regardless
There needs to be a way to reduce XP, and the formula needs tweaked so that it does not have such a large effect on score.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the main problem with xp is that it cant be destroyed in the same way value is.

If this is a problem, then XP might as well be done away with. The point of XP was to have something that couldn't be bashed away.

Value whores can be tackled with numbers, XP whores are there to stay regardless

Only to a point. A value player can stop playing for the last 2 weeks and be untouchable, whereas an XP player has to launch almost every day of the round (and land!) to maintain and gain rank.

[Tomkat]

In RPG games etc, when you build up XP it is relatively quick and easy to level up to begin with, then becomes more difficult and requires more effort as time goes on.

Couldn't that be used here?

So an XP whore at first wouldn't find it too hard to get lots of XP from hitting bigger people. As time went on though, and his XP increased in total, the amount gathered from each attack would be less. So to maintain a high score, he/she'd have to be hitting a lot each day.

Those who aren't XP whores could still benefit from the XP, as they wouldn't be relying completely on it.

So, quite simply, as your total XP increases, it becomes more difficult to gain score from it in each attack.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

In RPG games etc, when you build up XP it is relatively quick and easy to level up to begin with, then becomes more difficult and requires more effort as time goes on.

Couldn't that be used here?

So an XP whore at first wouldn't find it too hard to get lots of XP from hitting bigger people. As time went on though, and his XP increased in total, the amount gathered from each attack would be less. So to maintain a high score, he/she'd have to be hitting a lot each day.

Those who aren't XP whores could still benefit from the XP, as they wouldn't be relying completely on it.

So, quite simply, as your total XP increases, it becomes more difficult to gain score from it in each attack.

This seems to be the best solution by far in my eyes. The more xp you have the less you gain from new attacks.

[qebab]

Originally Posted by Treveler

This seems to be the best solution by far in my eyes. The more xp you have the less you gain from new attacks.

It would help, but balancing the stats to make it a bit easier to keep roids, would be easier, and most fair, in my opinion. Basing your round on xp-whoring, should take some skill to do, but with the amount of armour some ships have, and the few viable defense ships against them make it too easy.

ie. viper/fireblade -> peg, wich is the most viable defenseships, will die in large numbers if the attacker crash into them. It is hard to defend against de at the moment, likewise with battleships. Pirate/Levi/Wyvern/Dragon as an attack combo is incredible. You notice that terran have it very easy in getting roids, bue due to their low damage output, they have a hard time keeping them. The ideal xp-whore race at the moment. It makes it too easy.

Not that I want attacks to cease, but I don't feel that building a defensefleet is profitable at all, right now, and that is not right, in my opinion (You won't keep roids anyway, so all the defensefleet does, is defend 1/4 waves on your alliance, and increase your value so you get less xp). In earlier round it hasn't been very bad, so I'm willing to blame this on the very attacking biased stats of this round.

Oh, and Kargool, I can't see any good way to implement xp for defense that actually make a difference. The way wich is suggested in this thread, means it'll affect 500k score on the average alliance player, and not more. That is not much of a difference, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Gate

I support my idea on limiting score bonus you get from XP by your value. So a max of 4 or 5 scorein Xp for every score point in value.

Alternately, directly link gainable XP to your value... Something like (their value/your value)*(your value/100000)*60 = score bonus per roid. So if you're 200k value and roid someone 400k, you get 240 score per roid. If you're 1 mil and roid someone 2 mil, you get 1,200 score per roid, which is the cap. This could also be done on a sliding scale relative to universe average if need be, but I prefer the first idea.

I sincerely dislike 4. Firstly, it looks like a stagnation encourager, and secondly it screws with caths and ziks. If caths get their uber beefy EMP, their attacks become nigh unstoppable. If caths don't get uber beefy EMP, they get raped by every man and his dog (again). If ziks get uber stealing powers, then they can get immense value boosts. If they don't, they become a rape target...

Surely, you must see the obvious flaw of this idea. If a value-based planet gets fleetcaught, he loses everything. The idea with xp is that there will be something left. If this is implemented this way, you're back where you started. I'm less worried about stacks of resource than fleetcatches ruining everything.

Cath needs useful eta 7 defenseships as it is. The viper should, in my opinion have been emp this round, the terran bs had less armour, but there aren't all that many changes needed. Yes, it is a fine line, but with experimenting, it is very possible.


In hindsight, with the current package, I would have played a terran or zik xp-whore. But it won't take all that much to fix it.

[x-dANGEr]

I think the main problem in keeping XP-ing as 'another way of playing', and giving it the ability to outrun the value way of playing at the end of the round, will cause once more many complaining and whining through the community. So simply, if you keep XP-ing as another way, and someone wins using it, all those who used the value way will whine and say it's lame just as this round.. So I think it's best to limit the gameplay to 1 path, or else it will be very hard to balance. That being said, I think some minor fixes in the stats would make it quite good. Whatever is done, their will be a too good race, just use it

[gormster]

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

So I think it's best to limit the gameplay to 1 path, or else it will be very hard to balance.

Whydo you think we have 4 races then? The best additions to this game since r1 (say I as a returning player) are races and XP. This is because they have opened the game up to different styles of playing. I agree with the general consensus that there must be some tweakage to the shipstats to make them more defensive. It is a shame that even defending one's own planet has become a low priority for so many players. Maybe consider making stealers fire before pods?
I also feel that races should becomeeven more specialised. Dont increase the defence (read: damage) of terran fleets, just increase every other races.
Make all zik ships stealers: those who choosezikonian choose a specific style of amassing value through defence and offence, the killer ships do not fit in with this style.
Make all Cath ships EMP, it is stupid haveing 1/4 of your ships being worthless.
These last two suggestions will also increase the defensive options of both races, making it harder for terrans to just build a bunch of Barghest- and Wyvern-heavy fleets and run all over them.
Just me two pence

[x-dANGEr]

I think XP is quite good, don't get me wrong. It really decreases the likablity of a stagnation round. But as I said above, people won't accept the idea of being able to win with XP, by simply 3 fleeting everyday.

[gormster]

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

people won't accept the idea of being able to win with XP, by simply 3 fleeting everyday.

I also dislike the idea of people winning by this tactic alone. I think that an important part of planetarion should be taking care of your planet and those of your galaxy/alliance mates. I believe the best way is to somehow make the amount of xp per roid decrease as your XP gets larger. Or even perhaps, include the ratio between the XP's of the target and the attacker in the bravery factor formula? My poor tired brain is incapable of seeing the implications of this, except that it would make it even harder for XP whores to hit valuewhores of a similar score (who will obviously have less XP andthus the XP per roid will be reduced). If anyone sees any advantages/problems with this Id love to hear em.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by gormster

I think that an important part of planetarion should be taking care of your planet and those of your galaxy/alliance mates.

So far this round I've organised defence for a gal mate who was being fleet caught, done countless scans for people in my alliance/gal and helped people both new and old as regards targets. The image most people have of xp whores is just wrong.

[Snurx]

You helped me with a target. And what happened? I LOST MY FR YOU IRISHDRUNKARD!*









*I have no one but myself and my pillow to blame, I just wanted to namedrop <3

It seems to me the reasonable arguments against XP whoring this round is that they allow people to disregard their own value on both offence and defence. This unbalances the game and makes it very difficult for value players to do anything to pull down XP whores or prevent them from doing great damage to themselves. It seems to me all the legitimate problems would be fixed by scaling XP awards differently with regards to target and own values. If xp scaled more strongly with target value and less strongly with own value, xp players would need to become bigger to hit bigger targets to max their XP. 200k value whores hitting 400k players would do less well thank 800k value players hitting 1.6mil value players.

[Wishmaster]

I dislike the fact that top players got like 0 roids and 0 ships.

I ll try to forget top ranks of this round - and discredit it for being shit stats and free round ^^

That way it is like it never happened \o/

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

In RPG games etc, when you build up XP it is relatively quick and easy to level up to begin with, then becomes more difficult and requires more effort as time goes on.

Couldn't that be used here?

So an XP whore at first wouldn't find it too hard to get lots of XP from hitting bigger people. As time went on though, and his XP increased in total, the amount gathered from each attack would be less. So to maintain a high score, he/she'd have to be hitting a lot each day.

Those who aren't XP whores could still benefit from the XP, as they wouldn't be relying completely on it.

So, quite simply, as your total XP increases, it becomes more difficult to gain score from it in each attack.

I like this idea btw.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I dislike the fact that top players got like 0 roids and 0 ships.

I just dislike the top player, he's a tool

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I just dislike the top player, he's a tool

hehe.

I dont dislike THEM (well not most of them I think) - I dislike them having 0 roids and 0 ships ^^

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

In RPG games etc, when you build up XP it is relatively quick and easy to level up to begin with, then becomes more difficult and requires more effort as time goes on.

Couldn't that be used here?

So an XP whore at first wouldn't find it too hard to get lots of XP from hitting bigger people. As time went on though, and his XP increased in total, the amount gathered from each attack would be less. So to maintain a high score, he/she'd have to be hitting a lot each day.

Those who aren't XP whores could still benefit from the XP, as they wouldn't be relying completely on it.

So, quite simply, as your total XP increases, it becomes more difficult to gain score from it in each attack.

Implement this idea and the idea about smallis increases for xp for defence and it might just balance the game to a playable level.

[Tomkat]

I should get a free game credit for my fantastic ideas.

I'm just full of them!

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

In RPG games etc, when you build up XP it is relatively quick and easy to level up to begin with, then becomes more difficult and requires more effort as time goes on.

This might take us back to the idea that to do reasonably well, you need to be online at 4am, although it does depend on how it's implemented.

To be honest, I don't think there's much point in debating specific fixes until we've decided what the problem is. Do we want to go back to the way the game was, or do we want to aim for a new direction? What's the objective of the fix?

[Sjor]

number 4 ofc
also chaning the stats
not like Terran BS targeting all DEF
or cath CR targeting all possible def
so that def can stay untargeted. at least 2 good def ship for each class

also would like to see, only gal and ally can def (there is to much eta-1 def ships that dont need to be in ally)

maybe also no chance to leave ally or rejoin new one. Im just waiting for the last week when top 5 alliances will kick low score members and add some xp whores

r13 stats were great tbh, just need caths of r14

only my opinion ofc ^

[Veedeejem!]

number 4, but stats chance every round so ...

[x-dANGEr]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

This might take us back to the idea that to do reasonably well, you need to be online at 4am, although it does depend on how it's implemented.

To be honest, I don't think there's much point in debating specific fixes until we've decided what the problem is. Do we want to go back to the way the game was, or do we want to aim for a new direction? What's the objective of the fix?

I want to go back to the way the game was.

[gormster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So far this round I've organised defence for a gal mate who was being fleet caught, done countless scans for people in my alliance/gal and helped people both new and old as regards targets. The image most people have of xp whores is just wrong.

All of these ways are essentially helping out with alliance/galaxy coordination and control issues. This is not what I meant. I meant actually in-game taking care of your planet in the old school sense: amassing a fleet, protecting your roids, generally aiming to build your planet up rather than destroy all your assets every other day. It is ridiculous that the current #1 player has less value than I do; I started halfway through the round!

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by gormster

amassing a fleet, protecting your roids, generally aiming to build your planet up

These things were necessary to obtain score. Now there is a better way.

[Monroe]

How about the radical concept of XP (and bash limit) based on score rather then value?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by gormster

All of these ways are essentially helping out with alliance/galaxy coordination and control issues. This is not what I meant. I meant actually in-game taking care of your planet in the old school sense: amassing a fleet, protecting your roids, generally aiming to build your planet up rather than destroy all your assets every other day. It is ridiculous that the current #1 player has less value than I do; I started halfway through the round!

Nobody stayed for the game because they enjoyed seeing numbers click upwards on a screen once an hour, on the hour.

[gormster]

lol ok ok point taken, but you r still wanting your numbers to click upward every tick, right? otherwise whats the point of playing the game if you don't want score.
I just think at the very least it should be possible to win through the classic way of playing as well as by XP whoring...

[gormster]

Originally Posted by Monroe

How about the radical concept of XP (and bash limit) based on score rather then value?

Thats a pretty good idea