New Strategy for PA?
Before this discussion starts I'd like to make it clear that this isn't a thread for whinging about stats/XP so if you're planning on flaming either of them or a particular alliance kindly **** off.
My questions are these: Has PA moved into an entirely new era where all vestiges of how things used to be have finally been left behind? Is it the case now that defending is pointless and attacking is the only (and by only I mean the one single way as opposed to the balance between attacking and defending) way to win a round for an alliance. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is it a case now that alliances have become obselete as anything other than a show of friendship and alligiance and they have no part in the game other than to provide a "badge" for players attacking together? The last week has shown us that it is no longer profitable or sustainable for the top two alliances to go to war. It makes far more sense for both parties to stay clear of each other after the initial exchange and to look further down the "foodchain" for easier roids, more value and targets they can get through on with the smallest fleet possible. Do we want PA to just become a roid/XP race, or do we prefer that PA should be about fighting it out with your biggest threat or closest adversary? Is it better or worse for smaller alliances now that it makes more sense for the bigger ones to hit targets with reasonable value that they know are unlikely to be covered? Please note that these question are by no means the views of 1up as an alliance, but are purely questions I'd be interested in hearing responses to. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
I feel the game is changing radically. To the worse or to the best for the game leaves to be discussed. One thing is for certain. Loyalities may seem abit easier to give and to lose with the new game. I always get the same new members wanting to join because their alliances is bad at defence, and I always get thoose who quit the game/alliance because defence is hard to come by. Players attitudes is important in this process.
If a player doesnt like losing roids all the time, then this isnt a game for him anymore. If the player just shrughs it off and doesnt care then PA is still playable. Problem may be that before both type of players were attracted to the game. The players who doesnt like losing roids quit, or leaves.. But then again, alot of other issues are bizzare and strange atm. We got people who's top 50 for roids/value but ranked top 300 or even less.. we gotta do some changes, making defence abit more valued and xp abit less important, or else the game will stand to lose alot of players. And the only way the game can survive is that it attracts more players than it loses.. and I dont see that happening atm. This is ofc a personal view. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
What would be very interesting is if Ascendancy can continue their rise up the ranks and either take the lead or win the round. That would definitely indicate a big change in how to play PA, for this round at least.
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
The XP style of gameplay is great for the game in general, its something which allows casual players to play the game and have fun and while people will say it hasnt increased the numbers playing its also not reduced the numbers so its certainly better for the game than the pre pax game where the amount retiring from long term play outstripped those joining and staying in the game.
There is a problem in the fact that hardcore players want a game that requires you to get up at all hours and spend most of your day playing and such play style isnt indicative of maintaining or increasing the playerbase. Its the casual players whom boosted PA's numbers in the glory days and its these people whom the game needs to grow again. The two things just dont seem that compatable. I dont however think that alliances are now unimportant, its just that alliances and players havent yet adjusted to the new situations fully and if we could find a way of restricting the "suicide for score" effect a bit without encouraging hitting easier targets or punishing people for being bashed I think we would hit an optimum level where defence would still play a part, but it remained a game that attacking was encouraged (as attacking is almost always more fun that having to defend) and it was vital to balance your xp to value ratio a bit better |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
its a pretty stupid cycle we are in, value was the time of the past, everyone went for value, this round most go for xp, as it is the new 'in' thing. Next round everyone goes for xp, we see no value, the cycle repeats, everyone is forced to go for value, as xp wont work with no value planets. Its pretty much :down:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
Edit: Admittedly they are doing better today on the score front |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
After all If im active and i get attacked, not only does my incoming get reported for sure, I can also make sure i have the ships i need at home and buld the right ones. If i'm not around it may not be reported until later or at all and my fleets could be too far away to get back in time or ships built. And as much as keeping your value low may have benifits being able to build the right ships to attack efficiently requires you hold as many roids as possible |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
The game has evolved in a way to where BG's are way more effective than alliances. Nowadays a group of friends could play together and attack, and never defend, and still all end top 50 or so. I have always supported "playing less" of PA.
The game has simply evolved. One big thing I noticed, I used to prey on people who were inactive, and would be sleep all night and get easy roids. Now I prey on the nub that sits up all night watching TV shows, worried about his planet, as he has huge value and nice roids. SO what I lose a bunch of my fleet. Alliances now, are more so for organized attacks, and playing with others, as noone wants to play alone. but with the total lack of defence I have seen alot of the top planets get, they could have just as easily played solo all round and still been the same top 50ish rank. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
well with alliances being less about getting defence and requiring hardcore activity they are now more about playing with the people you like, without having to wonder if their defence is good enough to guarantee you backup and support for a top position
people who used to quit an alliance where they felt good and had fun for another alliance where they were guaranteed a better spot in the universe can now stay in the alliance where they want to be rather than the alliance where they need to be that's for the good part of this change, the bad side of the change is idd it reduces competivity between alliances and a game cannot survive without competition obviously |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
My gal is top 60, and we have more value than the #1 gal. The top 40-80 gals get most of the incomings in rounds like this, due to the lower gals being worth more XP.
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
oh my dear, the top gal roided the most. How odd! |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
the game surely changed, but - like Kargool said - to a bad or better thing, i dont know.
I for myself ended #56 last round with medium activity. currently im ranked around 200 with minimum effort and with minimum i mean minimum. i wasnt on irc for like 4 days and i dont even really search targets. i takes me like 20 mins a day to maintain my current rank - and i like that. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
The question everything turns around is:
Will the high value galaxies/players catch up on the XP whores, because they can keep their roids, and will be able to increase their value, and therefore score, exponentially , or will the XP whores with mostly linear growth still be on top at the end of the round? One of the issues we have here is, the more value the value players get, the more value and xp player can have and still cap max XP. Meaning his growth might also become exponential, though the factor can only be maximum half of the one of value players, which means on the long run, value players should grow faster and pass xp players. Unfortunately it seems the value part of the score doesn't have an as huge impact as the xp part, so I don't know how this adds up. I'm pretty confident that, over a very long round, the value players all finish top, but does this round last long enough for this so sum up? Another problem for value players is that they can have a lot of their score taken away by a fleet catch or crash, while the xp players can't lose most of their score. This means xp is a safer way, while you always risk falling far behind as value player. I think the best galaxy to keep an eye on is #7 currently. Should the round be long enough, they will finish first, imho. But I might be all wrong and underestimate the factor of xp-score compared to the factor of value. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
Explanation: it's possible to lose roids at the same time as gaining them |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
there are several factors (some permanent, others not) as to why this is becoming the case.
One factor which I think is exceptionally good is that lower ranked alliances have stopped thinking about block on block politics and have shifted to a more "what's best for me" rather than a "what can i do to affect the outcome" attitude. They've made it exceptionally awkward for other alliances to make a profit over long periods of time and this to me is good because it means they are getting more competitive and making life a lot harder for bigger alliances. Exilition needed a late rally to win last round. 1up aren't exactly having an easy time of it either. This makes it difficult for any alliance to be successful, as there is always someone to profit out of your success. Another is the stats, that have pandered to a playing for XP strategy - but with minor tweaks, this can be fixed. Another is the small alliance size that persists in this round, because defending is so much harder for them. Do we need to up the alliance size to make the benefits of organisation and defending hold true? Maybe so. But it can be fixed. However, I'd say the rankings reflect the time, ability and effort put in overall. Another is the nature of the round in that there are some who don't take it as seriously. This may just be a one off phase of the game where people are taking it easy (although the round still counts as much). XP is a very time-efficient strategy, in that it doesn't require you to put in lots of hours, but it does require you to make the most of picking those targets and to be active consistently. XP players do not waste their time on IRC until 5am to send 15k vsharrak ETA 7 - they'd rather be in bed. Quite simply, it means that you can play without getting tired and still get good ranking. This is the first time we've seen a real distortion between XP and value, but I think there are good ingame reasons for it that can be solved and we've seen in previous rounds a happy symbiosis between the two. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
A lot of the formidable structured alliances we've seen take a hold on the game over the last few rounds are more than weary of any 'new direction' the game could be taking. What we really need to recognise, and what we can already see, in front of us or at least from a distance is that a change towards flexibility and a emphasis on working together with friends is not only attractive, it should be considered necessary.
What most needs to be discussed is how we can take the positives from two very different concepts of Planetarion and bring them together. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
as Lokken has very well pointed out... these -great- changes, that will alter PA forever and ever are pretty much caused by some small tweaks, and are for this reason also easily "repaired" by some small tweaks.
So obviously, apart from opening the eyes of some people (like thise that still search targets near their bash limit), I can't imagine this round having any significant impact on the way the game is played. In my personal belief the majority of the alliances have been keeping the importance of defence at an artificially high level and the current stats helped expose this flaw. Especially at the bottom, too much time is spent on defence, holding on to what little they have, instead of trying to grow. On a sidenote, anyone with an unhealthy relationship with his/her roids is not somebody I want to play with. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
I dont know how intentional this shift to XP has been but this whole issue and the relevant topics have been discussed for many, many rounds in advance on the PA HC board.
From discussions relating to the alliance cap, to other dynamics that influence the game as a whole. The heart of the matter (for me at least), always seemed to be how important alliances should be to the success of individuals? On one hand you had certain HC wanting restrictions and changes that remove the importance of alliances, others felt alliances were the most important aspect of PA and changes should never damage this. Unfortunately for me, the changes over the last few rounds have left us with a Round 16 that favours the individual above their alliance. Although the XP thing hasn't really bothered me but i feel it has removed a "fear factor" from the game and this has traditionally been an important quality in PA. Couple this with the defence hardships and I think we have a PA that certainly leans towards solo'ing & BGs then Alliances. If hardcore players dont need to play hardcore to achieve a high score, then will these players cease to exist? If so, what effect will this have on PA? If hardcore alliances dont need to play together en'mass to achieve high scores & ranks, then will these Alliances cease to exist? Maybe its too soon to jump to conclusions but personally I've always felt any feature or game change that damaged the relevance of Alliances to be a BAD (and f#cking idiotic) move for PA. So just to sum up my fuzzy post, i'm all for increasing the success of inactives and helping newbies have fun but not at the expense of alliances & in turn their communities (who continue to sustain PA). Alliances obviously arent obselete yet but i fear it is heading in that direction. I wonder if we have another 15 pager on our hands?:P |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
You divvy :( Have you considered that because they're an XP whore alliance, they don't defend? so therefore when they get incs, they nearly always lose roids? So of course their gain isn't going to be that high, as they lose them as fast as they gain them. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
I do wonder, though, where would you draw the line between battlegroups and alliances? Imho both names reflect the same kind of organization:
A group of people playing together because they have a common goal and / or interest. The ingame alliance system simply reflects these groups, nothing else, it just categorizes all of them as "alliances" (what a battlegroup technically is). I wouldn't say the game is developing in a way that alliances become obsolete, it rather evolves in a way that even Jim Newbie and Johnny Casual can do ok'ish to decently without having to be active 24/7. As it was worded on this thread already: XP allows a more time-efficient way to success, you need to choose your targets wisely (even though that's sadly not the case this round). |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Everybody who thinks in the long run value will win over xp isn't right in my view. With 300k value, you are able to steal on XP max 1mil score per day (u usually dont get that, but more around 200k MINIMUM!). on like 600k value planets, wich hardly get defence. 1 million is a lot. As value guy, the only way to catch up actually is fleetcatching when you are zik. Score gained from resources can never keep up with the xp. U ll need enough roids to produce 10 mil of each resources per day for that, or probably more. (will give around 200k value per day). Also the bigger the value becomes, the fewer targets around, and the less xp when landing. IE: value cant keep up with xp. Also look to the score gap becoming bigger between xp gals and the rest, and between xp planets against top value planets.
No, this round is for xp, and perhaps next round it is value time again, who knows:-) |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
I won't be holding my breath though. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
I think, possibly through the way I originally started the thread, that some people are missing the point. I didn't ask these questions to discuss the effect on this round and it's outcome, I asked because it could be a complete fork in the opinion on how planetarion is played from now on. If I could start a poll I would to show some answer to the following questions:
I've spoken to several people about this and I've seen a huge disparity in the views on whether this is how PA should be played from now on. I'm perfectly aware that the "flaws" in the stats encourage this kind of strategy but do we want it to carry on or would we like a return to the "old" PA? My questions basically stem from an interest on the future of planetation given the significant numbers on both sides of the fence who believe that this style or old style is the only way planetarion should be played. Could the conflict in opinions ultimately cause the demise of planetarion? |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
Though to bring cluster alliances back I think something drastic will have to happen. Either hard code it so that in-cluster defence is -2 eta instead of -1, or perhaps allow for a 4th fleet which can only be used for in-cluster defence. Or if we want to be really adventurous we could implement them both and see what happens. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
cluster alliances only become relevant when there is in-cluster eta for attacking to make them relevant.
Cluster wars in a small universe like ours would be catastrophic, because as has been proved previously, a core galaxy with alliance support can get control of a cluster pretty swiftly. The point to be made is that this round tipped the balance whereby it was easier to get #1 by xp whoring than by playing for value, so many players went down that route. When you offer people success for less effort, they will take it. The players who should win are those that can build value while gaining the most xp and who are obviously, a bit lucky compared to their equal rivals What I'm suggesting is that we tip the balance back again to try and counteract this, as we know that previously, normal alliance combat has been allowed to persist and change should be in stats or alliance limits to do it. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
my first round in PAX after PA, and I think i should have been more careful in choosing tactics.value/roids are underrated and tbh, i dont know if it's necessarely a good thing.furthermore, having a good ally is overrated, since def is not really needed for t100.
we shall see next round I suppose, when all players get a fresh start with new stats. congrats to the ppl that managed to xploit this rounds stats and xpwh0re for the win :D |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Has it leveled the field for inactive alliances to beat active alliances? I doubt it. But that depends on how you define active. If active means chatting on IRC, then yes it has. If active means launching 3 or more fleets per day, then no, it hasn't. You still have to play to win, but you don't need to run around on IRC organizing everything. I've heard that one of the top [BIG] players doesn't really do IRC much, but XP has given him a chance to play competitively. It's given F-Crew players a way to get top100 planets, but it hasn't given F-Crew a way to compete with 1up (though the alliance limit seems to be helping them!) Quote:
People say XP players aren't in 'teams' or don't foster communities. I say **** you. If they didn't, the top100 would be full of alliance-less players. If they didn't, my private channel would be dull. People seem deluded by the fallacy that defense makes community, and it's an ad hominem attack that I find insulting. Quote:
The problem is that the core concepts of PA contradict casual play. You can't play a game where you can lose everything if you're away for 8 hours casually. XP was an attempt to unify the two, but it's been clear for the last 4 rounds that there's a problem. The fact that PAteam have failed to act in 4 rounds says a good deal about their ability to face the future. They are torn between the residual core of Planetarion, canon left behind by Spinner, and their own feeble attempts at creating a sustainable and fun game. I can't provide a solution without dipping into my thoughts on how the core of Planetarion should be shifted to create a new and better game. I can provide ad hoc suggestions to hold Planetarion over to PA:N, but PAteam have given us little reason to believe that will be anything other than yet another pale clone. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
I personally don't like this new way of PA very much. I've not played the round very actively, but I was on good way to become a xp whore, but it just feels a bit wrong. It's funny for a while, but then it's just about doing the same thing all the time.
If you want to make the game easier, this is the way to go. This, small alliance sizes and prelaunch has made this game into a search - launch - repeat game, and I for one liked the old days better. XP is a good thing, no doubt about it. I just want to tune it down. ps bring back round 3 stats and powerblocking please :) |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Return to the old style of play if you ask me, PA is about working as a team, whether thats ingal or alliance. This whole solo struggle thing doesnt quite hit the spot for me :( Seems to make the alliance rankings fairly irrelevent as it represents the strength of the invidivual members as opose to the strength of the command structure/morale.
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Basically lokken and banned explained it all, although I'd like banned to explain why xp has been a problem for the last 4 rounds.
There have been a few minor changes this round, notably the stats and alliance limit. Neither of these are radical, nor irreversable, so I don't think PA has shifted greatly. In previous rounds greater activity would usually mean better defense as that was the difference between winning the round and not. Now those with greater activity still have a benefit, but not the same as before. There is still the opportunity for limited defense, however its attacking that makes the difference now. Spend time analysing scans trying to find fleet movements for fleet catches, or landing after they do to maximise the number of roids you capture and thus score. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Ive been giving some thought on the whole xp whore argument.
If we look at the argument from two sides what do we get? Pros: - The game is accessable to more players as it takes less effort and time, this in turn could make pa increase the amount of players it has. - It allows someone to gain a top 100 planet with very little activity (compared to the old activity needed) - It allows players to not need an alliance - It makes alliances void to a certain extent and so rather than co-operating with 50 other people it now means you cant attack 50 people. - It can be fun attacking and having your score increase so much - It takes away variables from the game such as blocking and fence sitting - You dont have to be on 18 hours a day to have a top planet Cons - Some would argue this isnt pa (ie a wargame) - Alliances are being replaced, they are becoming void thus the social interaction may decrease amongst players - The game is moving from galaxy/alliance to an individual basis - Defence has become obsulete - Rather than a roid race, its now an xp race - Anyone can xp whore (I put this as a con, as I believe pa is about interaction not the individual) Im not against xp whoring, but I think there needs to be a line. If I wanted a true top planet I would join an alliance without rules, where I could 3 fleet all day, defend no one and recall the moment I see defence. Then its up to me to land 3 attacks a day. While its an attractive option im not too sure I like it when an alliance and galaxy who are both full of xp whores could win the round. This isnt to say I begrudge them on the contrary I salute them for doing it. However at the end of the day is there a difference between a roidrace and an xp race? |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
Otherwise a superb post and exactly the kind of response I was hoping this thread would garner. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
Sorry if I misunderstood, but I fail to see how that statement relates to anything or is even true? |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
he was complimenting you, you cock.
edit: unless i misunderstood :/ |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
I've read what Banned said and agree with a lot of it.
However, I'd like to offer the following thought. Since I came back to planetarion in the PAX era, I have been more than satisfied with the game on offer - I think planetarion has shifted drastically and is now all the better as a game on its own. What does worry me is this shift towards XP though, and I think we need to redress the balance. Whatever Banned says, I think the terran armor is ridiculous in spite of my relative ignorance on stats, and offers little incentive to anyone to defend against them effectively, simply because the cost is extortionate. Last round terran were a good XP race - they got turned into an exceptional one. Last round I was happy with the stats because while value was key to most people's success, you could play successfully with XP if you were determined enough to do so. XP offers a way of playing the game successfully if you don't buy into alliances - Rob, for example did well on his own, because he is a good player. People will no doubt latch onto Ascendancy's good ranking and make mountains out of molehills, but considering their memberbase, it is hardly surprising. XP was much better when it was that little difference between doing well and very well (because it is a good yardstick of efficiency), rather than being the definition of success which it is now. So to me, XP is not that big an issue. It needs to be solved by minor tweaks elsewhere in the game simply to make it less attractive. I find people demanding the lessening of effect of XP or its abolition abhorrent, as I believe people should be rewarded for being able to pick holes in fleets of larger planets and roiding them effectively. |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
|
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
Quote:
(Someone feel free to correct me if cheerios was this in r11.) |
Re: New Strategy for PA?
Quote:
I actually meant to say I doubt there is a closer community than DLR, sorry about that. But well done on your "jumping down people throat" gold medal, I hear it's an exhibition sport at the next special olympics. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:09. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018