Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (http://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Planetarion Suggestions (http://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   galaxy score suggestion (http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=201550)

bankeris 12 Feb 2018 07:31

galaxy score suggestion
 
Hi,

I think galaxy win is a cool thing but seems it has big impact of luck, mostly by members count. Some galaxies have 10 players, some 8 or lower count, even if you are on 7 member galaxy and waiting for new exile in players it's not very promising. We have an Alliance system based on 60 players, and only Top 40 are counting for an alliance score.
I suggest to do something similar to galaxy score, so 7-8 players could compete vs galaxy of 10 players. As for now 8 active members has probably few % to win vs 10 active members because of additional 2 members score.

Ave 12 Feb 2018 10:20

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
sounds like a good suggestion :)

Mzyxptlk 12 Feb 2018 16:18

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
I oppose this for the same reason I oppose 'counting members': it turns a portion of the player base into second-class citizens, leading to situations in which they are forced ("encouraged") to crash for the benefit for those who are already on top: "you should crashing your 5m value fleet to save 3 roids on my top planet". For the greater good, the rich man said.

Ave 13 Feb 2018 08:03

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Alltho best fix would be to kill exile and planet jumping :)

Cowkimon 13 Feb 2018 17:30

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Alltho best fix would be to kill exile and planet jumping
If only from a physics standpoint. Must be very hard to move an entire planet from one galaxy to another. This crazy game eh? :bunny:

bankeris 14 Feb 2018 09:15

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3261345)
I oppose this for the same reason I oppose 'counting members': it turns a portion of the player base into second-class citizens, leading to situations in which they are forced ("encouraged") to crash for the benefit for those who are already on top: "you should crashing your 5m value fleet to save 3 roids on my top planet". For the greater good, the rich man said.

You still can choose crash or not, it's up to you - none can force all your ships to crash. And for the moment you have no chance to get +2/3 members, so the system auto disables you from top galaxy spot.
Check top 5 galaxies - all 10 members, so even you have 9 equal members in other galaxy its basically makes you lose because of 1 player missing. I can agree there is a chance for a win 9 vs 10, but galaxy with 10 players now has bigger advantage. That's why Alliance counting score top 40 is very good idea. So players can play in other smaller Alliances and still have a chance for a win.
Galaxy score suggestion - makes less impact for luck and members count win.

BloodyButcher 14 Feb 2018 09:25

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bankeris (Post 3261360)
That's why Alliance counting score top 40 is very good idea. So players can play in other smaller Alliances and still have a chance for a win.
Galaxy score suggestion - makes less impact for luck and members count win.

Alliances counting to 40 is a crap idea.
The same alliances are winning now as before the implementation.
The only difference is that its more support planets that will crash their fleets to save the roids of someone in the top40

bankeris 15 Feb 2018 07:17

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3261361)
Alliances counting to 40 is a crap idea.
The same alliances are winning now as before the implementation.
The only difference is that its more support planets that will crash their fleets to save the roids of someone in the top40

Show brep who crashed his fleet and saved roids? i want to see.

BloodyButcher 15 Feb 2018 07:24

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bankeris (Post 3261370)
Show brep who crashed his fleet and saved roids? i want to see.

Its realy not relevant is it? It happends every round, that people store brep is rare though.

https://game.planetarion.com/show_ne...k1r6t01xstfoqn
https://game.planetarion.com/univers...xu9kaifwbuhtk2

https://game.planetarion.com/show_ne...c93woobrn651sa (not a crash since it was fake, but he was willing too)

bankeris 15 Feb 2018 08:21

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
And i still dont see how they saved roids.

BloodyButcher 15 Feb 2018 08:26

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bankeris (Post 3261374)
And i still dont see how they saved roids.

They are willing to crash their fleets to force a recall?
As they dont count for score, the tag will not lose any score for it when they die.

Blue_Esper 15 Feb 2018 11:26

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3261372)
Its realy not relevant is it? It happends every round, that people store brep is rare though.

https://game.planetarion.com/show_ne...k1r6t01xstfoqn
https://game.planetarion.com/univers...xu9kaifwbuhtk2

https://game.planetarion.com/show_ne...c93woobrn651sa (not a crash since it was fake, but he was willing too)

real question is why are people landing on them in the first place. all look like att crashes to me

BloodyButcher 15 Feb 2018 13:13

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue_Esper (Post 3261377)
real question is why are people landing on them in the first place. all look like att crashes to me

Well thats another funny story, wich was partly discussed in the other thread.
Eventually it was decided we would just kill it off so they would be discouraged from continue defending against us, spesificaly, every singel day. That it turned to allegedly be your gal mates multies makes it ironical today.

Point being, that if all planets counted for score tags woud think twice about doing thess kinda calls

Blue_Esper 16 Feb 2018 01:01

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3261379)
Well thats another funny story, wich was partly discussed in the other thread.
Eventually it was decided we would just kill it off so they would be discouraged from continue defending against us, spesificaly, every singel day. That it turned to allegedly be your gal mates multies makes it ironical today.

Point being, that if all planets counted for score tags woud think twice about doing thess kinda calls

you realise salvage makes back at least 40% on losses most of the time, while you dont gain anything but a small increase in income

BloodyButcher 16 Feb 2018 12:12

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue_Esper (Post 3261386)
you realise salvage makes back at least 40% on losses most of the time, while you dont gain anything but a small increase in income

Would you kill 50% of your total(!) fleet defending a allymates roids?

Blue_Esper 16 Feb 2018 14:59

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3261392)
Would you kill 50% of your total(!) fleet defending a allymates roids?

would you kill 100% of your fleet in the off chance that the defender is faking?

eksero 16 Feb 2018 16:54

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Would you kill 50% of your total(!) fleet defending a allymates roids?

Suicide def isn't uncommon, if the attackers loses more than def after xp/salvage then it clearly wasn't a good land for you to begin with

Mzyxptlk 16 Feb 2018 18:25

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
In battles like that, there are no winners, just losers. Sure, maybe after salvage you lost "only" 1.6m while your opponent lost 2.3m, but you're still all ****ed.

CBA 18 Feb 2018 10:07

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3261402)
In battles like that, there are no winners, just losers. Sure, maybe after salvage you lost "only" 1.6m while your opponent lost 2.3m, but you're still all ****ed.

Technically this is incorrect. It is very much circumstantial; if the top alliance is battling for top spot and there is only one contender. For example this round it would be Ult v HR - that would be a win land for Ult.

However in almost all circumstances I see these lands are indeed bad for both. My argument has always been if itís a bad red red - say defenders lose 1m+, value, unless the attackers lose 5x+, then the def should pull just before tick. A lot of value would be saved this way.

Mzyxptlk 18 Feb 2018 20:36

Re: galaxy score suggestion
 
Agreed. I spent a lot of time coming up with a reasonable formula to determine whether an attack was launchable (not landable!) for my bcalc/stats analysis tool. Whether you would launch an attack depends almost entirely on how many ticks it takes for the roids you cap to repay for your losses. Even if you potentially kill twice or thrice as much as you'd lose, if it took 200 ticks for the roids to repay, you'd just go find a less risky target instead. And that doesn't even take into account that such an attack would turn sour with much less defense than one in which you start out with 0 losses to begin with.

It's a little messier when you're already ETA 1, because you've already invested resources into it (travel time, ships in use, and a fleet slot), but the principle is the same: better to land for free tomorrow than to land with significant losses today, even if you kill much more than you lose, even if today's attack caps more roids.

As for which side should recall, I'd say the consideration is the same for both sides. Playing chicken involves punching the breaks before the point of no return, not after. Even balls of steel get flattened when you hit the wall. The only times you should intentionally land such a calc is 1) if there's no competition to worry about (like in your example), 2) one of your teamup partners can't get on, and you lose less if you all land together, or 3) you see the other side chicken out first. In all other cases, you pull at xx:59:55.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:45.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2013