Attacking vs. Defending
Many would say the current ship-stats make attacking to easy and defence very hard.
This is in some ways a good thing, as roids being exchanged a lot leads to a dynamic round, but it is also bad for morale as no one likes to loose roids, and this could potentially lead to players, and especially new players leaving the game. However ship stats are not the only way to control how easy it is to attack and defend, features such as pre-launch also play a big role. One way of making attacking harder would be to reduce the amount of ticks you can prelaunch by for attacks, while leaving it high for defence. Another would be with the ship stats - increasing pod cost would make roiding people harder, and increasing all ships armour would result in less bashing of planets and hence increase morale. I'm sure there are other ways to control the ease of attacking and defending, so please do suggest them, but the key question is - Is defence currently so hard it could lead to experiances and new players getting fed up and potentially stopping playing? |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I think it is. I don't think that prelaunching would have any effect though. I think that a reason you didn't touch on for it is the galaxy setup - most galaxies are dysfunctional defence wise. Outside your buddy pack, it is rare to find defence, which is because of the way that the galaxy system creates conflicts in-galaxy by placing hostile alliances together, and lets face it, galaxy before alliance is not something likely to occur ever again in PA, as most people only play for their alliances. This also means that the alliances are going to get a lot more incomming as attacking full galaxies is no longer necessary, or viable (galaxies are too big, and their dysfunctional nature means you can just attack a few from planets per gal), so you can attack purely one alliance, and put incomming on every one of their planets. This has never before been possible, and I think shows the current galaxy setup to be probably the worst we have ever had (no criticism here, we wouldn't have known without trying it). I think this is the main reason, as ultimately, the galaxy setup makes it possible for one 'block' to dump 3 waves on every single member of a certain alliance. That is the main reason by far that defence is so much harder than attack this round. It doesn't matter what you do with stats/pre-launch, as long as you keep this galaxy setup, defending will be a lot harder than attacking.
Another problem is that XP is too high from roiding - or at least has too much effect on your score (in my view, many may disagree with this - also, my suggestion in another recent thread would probably combat this problem). This means that landing through a LOT of defence can be very worthwhile. With relation to the stats, the leviathan is invincible, so roiding for terrans with BS is like closing planets for multihunters, something they can do without any thought whatsoever (cheap dig, but it amused me). Single targetting for ships means that most people, with the way ships are built at the moment, are only useful against one sort of incomming. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I fundamentally agree with Bashar on the galaxy setup question.
The problem as I see it is the strength of pods. I liked the idea of making pods very strong, but its negative consequences were not realised at the time. At the moment, to prevent any roids being capped, you have to stop all the pods (obviously). What you will find is that you have to kill all of the incoming ships of the pod's class in order to kill the pods. This leads to a big hit in value and the destruction of an attacker's entire attacking fleet - which is a pretty firm hit in the nads for both casual and 'hardcore' players. So my suggestion would be to go the other way - make the stats so that you kill all the pods without killing the rest of the incoming fleet. Make pods cheap but light on armour/damage, and things will work far better - after a failed landing, an attacker can pick himself up, build a load more pods and go out the next night with a similar fleet to the night before. The death of an attacker's entire fleet will only happen if the pods are significantly overkilled, and as a DC myself I wouldn't be too bothered about that. Writing this I was struck by a thought - that if you don't kill the other ships, then they will still shoot/kill defence ships (bad). Every solution to this that I think of is in itself flawed, but I pitch this up to you lot in hope that someone can take it and run with it. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
Quote:
It might be possible to argue that part of the problem is newbies using prelaunch though. Since newbies tend to have a somewhat poorer grasp of the ship stats, they often end up sending excessive fleets at their targets. Combined with prelaunch, newbies do have the ability to launch heavy (in relative terms) attacks at hours when their targets are very unlikely to be online. Quote:
Making pods prohibitively expensive makes it much harder for newbies to attack. Seriously, I think you need to consider what a newbie actually wants from the game. Do they want to sit, initiating roids all round, never being attacked? Or do they want to go out attacking themselves, even if it means losing roids when they're attacked? Increasing pod cost may deter newbies from attacking, which in the long term is unlikely to make them want to remain active in playing the game. Quote:
The problem is the unavailability of defence for newer players, not the ship stats. You can tweak the ship stats as much as you like, but an undefended newbie is still an undefended newbie. I refer you to this thread and this thread (specifically the discussion about in-cluster ETAs) for some ideas on how to make more defence available. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I fundamentally disagree with Bashar on, well, just about everything he posted :(
Quote:
Quote:
Far from being the "worst" galaxy setup system ever, I think this is quite possibly the best. If alliances want to put 3 alliance members in a buddy pack, that's their own fault and they should blame their own stupidity rather than the galaxy setup system. Quote:
I don't see what's wrong with landing on a lot of defence. A universe full of people who do nothing but launch, recall and never land sounds like an extremely boring universe to me. That would cause people to get bored and quit a lot faster than losing a few ships or roids would. Quote:
Quote:
Building a balanced fleet is part of being good at the game. Knowing what your weaknesses are and attempting to compensate for them is what makes the difference between a good player and a bad one. We could go back to round 4-style stats and build nothing but phoenixes and spiders, but would that really make the game any more fun? |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Rob, I think that it has swung too far though. Last round was over-defensive, definitely, and this round is better I would say, but I think it has possibly swung too far. I think we need a compromise between the two. Also, you assumed that with 6 buddy pack members, that's 6 people who'll defend each other. In a very large number of cases, it's 2 sets of 3 who'll defend within their own buddypack, and in a fair few cases, who'll help their alliance attack other buddypack by telling them when they're offline, and giving them gal status.
From an alliance perspective, this round, you are either up to your ears in incomming, or you're free of it. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Maybe a totally different suggestion,
can't you set up a galaxy that every race will be represented in number like they are in the universe. Race Count (%) Best Planet Score Rank Terran 1066 (32%) Reign OF Thunder (7:5:2) 3,019,691 4 Cathaar 790 (24%) Tales OF The Wolf (1:10:2) 2,894,156 8 Xandathrii 781 (23%) bored OF that (4:2:2) 3,251,652 1 Zikonian 639 (19%) Zik OF Thieves and Pirates (14:2:8) 3,239,365 2 in a galaxy of 20 people 6 terran 5 cathaar 4 xan 4 zik and 1 spare something like that? |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
This round, even the top alliances aren't that far ahead of the universe average. This is a profoundly good thing. Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
imo we've tried 3 man buddy groups and although an intersting change, they simply change the game too much, you can play with only two friends, and a massive amount depends on the randoms that you get.
You may say that this is good as noobies can lnd in good galaxies etc. but every decent galaxy exiles any noobs straight off in the hope of landing good players. You can blab at me all you like about teaching noobies but it rarely happens and they can learn more playing with their equals with mentors on hand for advice. It can't be good for them to land in 5 or 6 different gals and keep getting exiled. personally i believe that there is little option but to go back to 5 man buddy packs or something similar to stop attacking next round being the same as this one. 2 opposing buddy packs in a gal causes massive problems and a lot of the time ends up in one buddy pack being exiled out 1 by 1 meaning that they can't play together and therefore end up quitting as has happened in more than 1 gal i know of this round. About these alliance wars that are apparently "good for the game". It's not a case of yey the alliances are attacking each other, it merely comes down to constant roid swapping as an alliance with multiple waves on each member has NO chance of defending them. Leading to some alliances giving up entirely on defence and deciding to merely attack with 3 fleets every night and XP whore. Something needs to be changed and imo going back to 5man buddy packs or even splitting up private and random gals again is the way to do it. Personally i'd love to play in a private gal again, even if it's cut right down to 5 man gals, and i know a lot that would feel the same. Not saying that i would quit the game next round if the system stays the same, but it is cutting my enjoyment of the game down massively. ach there's my rant over, flame away kiddies Holyboy |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I quite like the attack/defence dynamic of this round. It is hard to defend but that's good because as you say it makes for a more dynamic round. I don't think increasing the armour of ships or increasing the cost of pods would be a good thing.
As for the galaxy setup, I like that too. Private galaxies have always been a bad idea, two buddy packs of three seems like a perfect amount to me. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
This probaly isnt much good here but terrans are too expensive! I'm a newbie to planetarion and i find that keeping any sort of resonable fleet is near impossible. All the other races are capable of building thousands of ships which even if they lose are relatively easy to replace, terrans can't do that at all unless they are huge. Also Leviathans are only an option after a terran reaches a certain size, most normal sized planets can't even build one a tick! I don't understand how terrans can be described as the best choice for a new player when its extremely difficult to recover from a pasting!
Anyway to the galaxy thing, surely there is someway of seperating new people from the pro players? Someone said further up that newbs are just exiled, this is very true! Most galaxies seem happy to just boot out the newbs until more experianced players appear. That just seems pointless if you want any to stick around. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Pod armor overall is probably a bit on the high side, otherwise I don't really see any major problems.
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
Most of the problems this round stem from XP and the unbalanced zik stealing ability. Stats could be adjusted, but they always can. The only prelaunch-related feature that i'd like to see is prelaunched fleets taking part in combat, to stop people prelaunching to avoid lots of waves of incoming. I have to say that my galaxy works fine, but I guess that's partly because it is a top 15 galaxy. Most galaxys have some sort of co-operation. I know that the galaxys are almost linearly done in score (I think) and so there's quite a few bad ones where people do end up, but I don't think having a semi private galaxy would help, even if it was 5 people then randoms. Anyway, that's all for another thread. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
Regarding exiles... my galaxy has had a policy of keeping those who players who are active, regardless of how long they have been playing. It's activity, rather than "newbieness" that has determined who has been exiled. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I don't think this round is too offensive. It was very hard to defend early on in this round, but things are improving as people get more and more ships. As a Terran I find it pretty hard to capture roids. It seems like I'm the sucker who always gets defended against.
Some changes like the extra slot for ingal defence could have a major impact on the game, changing the game and political landscape completely. Already this round alliances seem to have made the wrong choice: go for blocks, make sure your members set their alliance as their first priority. I haven't seen any alliance doing the opposite: stimulate ingal co-operation. Alliances that are now getting killed by blocks attacking all their members at once should realize that they should have stimulated their members to defend ingal, so their galmates would have returned the favor. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
Actually, you don't get XP for killing, stealing, or freezing ships. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I wish that he hadn't destroyed all of his compliments about my suggestion with that comment....some peoples' ignorance astounds me.
Anyone got any comments for it? Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
Yes I do believe that attacking is far too wasy this round, roids moving around is good, but this round they move around way too much. Its not like it has been hard to steal asteroids before, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten players with 12k roids :) Changing the prelaunch as stated will do no good at all to change the ease of attack and defense. I mean, come on what does keeping prelaunch for defense high have anything to do with anything? "Gee I think my alliance mate is going to be attacked in 6 ticks, lemme just set this prelaunch defense for 8+7, there we go!" Defense is usually a reaction, meaning you dont usually need more than a few ticks prelaunch (in the case of galaxy def) at the most. Also, increasing ships armor will not discourage bashing, or make attacks harder. In fact increasing armor will make attacks easier, because it will take even MORE ships to stop an attack. The reason why attacks are hard to stop is that pods are incredibly hard to stop. The reason being is two fold, cost and armor, with armor being quite unimportant compared to cost. The most important thing is cost. Pods should always be the cheapest ship of its respective class, at least for that race. When you make other ships cheaper than pods, it means that you can easily outflak ships. There are two ways to solve this problem, change the way the combat system works, or to change the cost of pods. The combat system works by basically combining all ships of a class into a big pool. It distributes firepower based upon the number of ships present. If you are attacked by 10000 vsh and 1000 dagger, in this case 1/11 of the firepower is targetted at the daggers). This is why having cheap ships to flak for pods is very good. The cheap vsh means you can easily raise the # of daggers the defenders need to have the firepower to kill in order to stop roiding. To fix the combat system, simply make targetting based upon value and not the number of ships present, this would mean that for the same 10000 vsh 1000 dagger case, now you have 17% of the firepower directed at the dagger whereas with the current system you only had ~ 9%. Now if you dont want to change the combat system to be value dependent and not # dependent. Simply go back to the old rule of thumb from previous rounds. Pods are always the cheapest, or close to the cheapest for their respective class. Having the Vsh 2x cheaper than the Dagger has made defending against an FI attack darn near impossible, and the problem is there for most other pods as well. Thats my $0.02 |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
pre launch defence is important helix, as it means u can launch in gal defence when the incs come rather than having to wait. simialrly an alliance can easily send fi defence against slow attackers etc.
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
i think you shouldnt worry about that too much.
the new gal systems made enough ppl paying. i got apa rock and coven, even f-crew ppl ingal which all started getting addicted cuz this round is fun for them, too. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
I suggest you read a little better Kal : "Defense is usually a reaction, meaning you dont usually need more than a few ticks prelaunch (in the case of galaxy def) at the most." You also need to consider that for the majority of your paying members the most important defense is alliance defense which is usually prelaunch 0 or 1, 2 at the most. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
and for most of the newer players gal defence can be prelaunched anything from 2 to 4 hours depending on the incs. and that's only after other folks have done travel tech.
(yes newer members spend most of their defending time sending fleets to gal mates) |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Me and my gal enjoy the attack and defend system very much..
Even alliancesless dudes without PA experience can get roids now and they love it.. (their planets are still small tho ;)) |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
Knowing me, though, it was prolly a part of one of my Master Plans to make ship stat interpretation easier for new players (and thus me too, as i build a godawful lot of them). heh :\ |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
my vote goes to:
no offensive pre-launch defensive pre-launch max +2 |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
1. The problem is that some races have a far easier time keeping the roids they gain than other races. (Ziks overall now are very hard to hit, Caths can be hit by everyone and their dog). So either upgrade Caths, or neuter Ziks.
2. Get rid of pre-launched attacks, keep pre-launch def to around +5 ticks. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Caths have always been easy to hit, because they can't kill anything.
Their advantage is that they can freeze enemy ships, thus being able to attack much more aggressively (look at the XP of the top Cath planets). Generally speaking, any planet smaller than yourself is "easy" to attack, in that it should always be possible to get roids if he receives no outside defence. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
:\ Doesnt really matter now anyway i suppose. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Sov, but then corsairs wouldn't have kicked arse!
the problem with say the zik balance atm, is based in part in most folks wanting to land for the xp, and this being benificial. Zik can land that much easier, as they can make up for huge losses. the xp system is ok, zik are ok, but the two of them in the same round are making what could be passable problems into major flaws. (and thieves are broken :( ) |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
1) Reduce the armor on zik steal ships, making it harder for zik to land on big losses because they steal ships, because they are less likely to have as many ships left over to do the stealing with. Admittedly this would probably weaken zik too much. 2) Reduce zik firepower on steal ships. If it were up to me, I would say you need to cut the firepower in half at least. 3) Make ziks lose their own ships for stealing again. It doesn't have to be the 1:1 ratio like it was before. You could make them lose 1 ship for every 2 they steal (whether you rely upon value or armor doesn't really matter, just that they lose ships in order to steal). Also, imo the XP formula is not bad at all, the reason why it has come into question this round is not really a sign that the XP formula is bad, it is actually a sign that the ship stats are bad. The problems people have with XP is in my opinion pointing directly to the fact that this rounds ship stats have made it drastically too easy to attack, and drastically too hard to defend and keep roids...especially for Cath, less so for Terran and Xan, and even less so for most ziks. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I disagree.
I think you're taking a profoundly simplistic view of how the game works. Taking the stats in isolation, it's easy to "prove" that ship x or race y is "unbalanced", by whatever definition you wish to use for "balance". I don't think you're being dishonest in your arguments, but I think you're judging too early and trying to apply a very narrow set of factors to make some pretty sweeping statements. Ultimately, stats are not used in isolation. Planetarion is not a big battle calculator, and its players are not predictable AI-controlled bots (cue Killmark/LDK joke). Zik may have some stats advantages, but they have other disadvantages. High value seems like a winning strategy, but Zik can be relatively easily overpowered - I'm Zik and I've lost about 2000 roids this round. Most of the Zik's value is tied up in ships that are of little use when facing a larger enemy - a few Xans teaming up on a Zik can utterly screw him over, and for a nice hefty XP gain. Once the alliance political situation loosens up a bit (i.e. once all those fat WP Ziks start getting incoming) I think this will become apparent. Making judgements about balance issues when we're only a third of the way into the round is foolish imo - and it is doubly foolish of PA team to be encouraging this debate at this time. Let the round play out and let the meta-game factors take their effect before judging the stats setup. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I'm not wrong :(
zik wouldn't steal half as much if other folks wouldn't want to land, be that in attacking or in defending (since zik steals on both occasions). the reason why folks want to land is in part due to the XP and in part due to the set up of pods. and we've seen similar culminations before.... take the xan changes in rnd 8, they weren't THAT overpowered, but when you added in the mil scan changes and the xan option to fake, it tipped the scales too far... |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I havent played pa for a while (last one was 9.5) and I came back this round.
Noticed 2 things that has changed that made the slight advantage to the attacker: 1) before attackers had 3 ticks of attack vs 6 ticks of defence giving defence a slight advantage against wave attacks. Now its 1 tick vs 1 tick giving attacker a slight advantage because its easier to break through defence with waves. 2) before you could build your fleet so that you could relatively defend yourself against most fleets that were smaller then you. now its impossible to defend yourself against everything and people 1/2 your size can break through your fleet (with no defence). >>> Reason for this is because there are no longer 2nd and 3rd targetting ships... <<< so basically it forces you to build every type of ship but you cant build enough of them to defend yourself well enough... |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
mebe we shud make a round where you gained XP based on how long you keep your roids and how many you have, or simply return to the old value scheme.
there is no need to defend in r13, because losing roids lowers your value, thus u gain more XP when you cap roids in a later attack. this rd is all about offence, roid loss is nothing special, losing fleets is what hurts |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
I beleve this was done to encourage more fluidity in the universe as if you can defend against every thing it makes attacking very difficult and if you cant attack this game loses a lot of its fun rather quickly |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I think the current system is very anti the little planets, who dont really get represented much on this board. This is my first round since round 5, and i have been stuck in a small galaxy and have a tiny score. So far, I can't really see an imporvement since then and I can't say I have been very tempted to carry on playing.
It is no fun when you are trying to build up, and you get roided, when half the reason isnt your roid count but the fact that the attacker can get a higher score. but also the 1 tick defense and attack makes it hard for smaller planets to be defended, and i think also removes a good dimension of the game. This with the pre-launch faility just means that no one in your galaxy can see your defense in time. This leads to people being unwilling to defend because they cant see any other defense, and no one wants to stand in defense by themselves. This leads to the little planets often feeling isolated, and are attacked without really being able to get help. This just means they get no fun out of the game, when given the chance they might have grown to proficient, and paying players of planetarion. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!!
Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! Bring back the 5 Buddy Buddy-pack!!! |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I unfortunately chose to play Cathar this round, boy was that a mistake.
I have given up trying to get roids, or even attacking it is pointless, and a waste of time and effort, because if you do gain a decent amount of roids as a cath you become the number one target for every lamer in the game, (Nubs and Alliances alike) and then become a big defence drain on your alliance and galaxy. There is something fundamentally wrong when I cant even defend 200 roids against a planet half my size. |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Okay, pretty please bring back the bigger buddypack..
small buddy packs can be ruined by one guy in it getting exiled = bad |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
Quote:
|
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
I think the attack pre-launch should not be removed.
People who has eight hours workdays without possibility to login while in work could only attack with battleships or cruisers in their fleets in order to check jumpgate scan in case of defenders. And the people who has work are the most prominent payers ;) |
Re: Attacking vs. Defending
can the lower value limit of a planet you are allowed to attack not be raised from 40%, even if its only to 50%, 60% of your value?
My experience in this round has shown me that almost every incoming hostile fleet I have had has been from someone who's value would make me the absolute smallest target they could go after. For example 1.8/1.9 mill value planets when I was on 800k. Why do planets need tobe able to target planets so much smaller than themselves? i've seen countless posts on this forum of people talking about how the current attacking system allows players to attack planets bigger than themselves and not lose many ships (with the 1 class targetting system etc), and as i understand it, a lot of people will go for similar sized or bigger planets because of the xp. Doesn't change the fact there's still a lot of people out there who just look for the absolute smallest target possible... It's put me off playing a bit (I'm not a so called 'newbie', played rounds 3 and 4 but not played since till this one), and I've spoken to other 'newbies' and I know it's severly pissed them off to see someone much bigger than them smash them to bits... |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018