R61 Changes
"buddy pack sizes are planned to remain static"
Current problem i see is gals are too large and there are too few of them. Considering the number of gals in the game is dictated by the number of buddy packs there are, how is PA team going to address this issue, is the shuffle getting recoded? "Multi Tick Combat" This will be a complete disaster, is it going to be 3 tick attack, 6 tick defense? how does that work with the current universe size. How will it work with in-game alliance tools? sounds like the defense tools will become a complete mess. I fear players will crash a lot sooner and get raided a lot faster, leading to people quitting quicker. I'm currently playing the "other" game that we are not allowed to mention and it is lacking a good combat system unlike PA with no real reason to go out attacking. I fear that players that play PA more casually will get turned off by a more demanding/complicated system. What I think PA team should be concentrating on is a return to tech tree or implementing some sort of tech tree into the current races. Opinions?? |
Re: R60 Changes
Certainly the amount of ticks you can set you planet to attack/defend will be either 3/3 or 2/2, or as it is now 1/1.
I dont see the problem with multicombatticks, but the stats needs to be done according to this. If PA crew actualy intend going through with this, ill start cooking up a stats from scratch wich i think will fit multicombatticks |
Re: R60 Changes
Where did you hear about these?
|
Re: R60 Changes
Quote:
|
Re: R61 Changes
Shows how active I am post tick 200!
|
Re: R61 Changes
Multi tick combat is certainly very nostalgic. But my memories of pre PAX combat say it was all rather messy and confusing.
I agree with gm that adding complexity to combat might not necessarily be a good thing. It throws a number of the current bases of tactical thinking up in the air to see where they land. For example: standard practice is to have waves limited to 1 ship type or meta-class. pileups of several are usually unintentional. It is generally considered unadvisable to have multiple classes layer on top of each other. If people wanted to do it it is perfectly possible now by simply launching BS first, DE second... but in general this is not done. (some fleet catches excepted) In a multi tick combat if attackers launched sequentially as now then it would become very messy very quickly. To avoid this all attacks on a single target that night would have to be the same class. Alternatively an alliance enforcing a 3 hour spread to each wave launching would lengthen attacks to the point that the third wave launches 7 hours after the first... and well past breakfast time. |
Re: R61 Changes
i dont think multi-tick combat will drive players away - no one is forcing you to stay there for 2(3) ticks !?
it adds some more action to the standard prelaunch at 22:00, wake up eta1 to j-scan thats my opinion at least - and for all changes applies that having something new (old) added for a single round wont make PA die all of a sudden on the other hand not changing stuff will deffo let this game die (not all of a sudden either though) what i say is, try it - if it sux, remove it again for the other point of this thread YES please shrink down the size of galaxies to 8max or something (buddypacks lowered to 3?) Also finally REMOVE the late signup feature - as its just the topgals profiting from it anyhow Alternatively you could honor ppl late signing in out of top20 gals with a free credit maybe (for that 1 round) but i dont see someone late starting in a top40 gal otherwise - why would them ? allready late in the round and then starting in a farm galaxy ? doesnt make sense really |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
The game of launch then recall but no battles is one of the oft criticized features of PA as it is. Assuming the current lethality of a one tick combat is spread over three I think actual combat will rise hugely. For example: It may well be worth landing one tick to test if def is fake. Any def on a J scan coming in on for a second tick would likely convince attackers that even if there is def on the first tick then they can fight it. |
Re: R60 Changes
Quote:
In my opinion you would want to have them much less destructive. Right now if there is a battle (particularly without emp) then there is a good chance one side will lose most of its fleet. This is why the game is launch, recall, relaunch until you get through without defence. Under this system if a wave wipes the floor on the first tick they then hold the fort and gain benefits for another two ticks but unless more fleets are piled in by the defending side there wont be any more combat because it would once more be one sided; there wont be much of the defence from the original tick left. Presumably cap rate will also be cut at the same time? It would really suck for someone to come in, destroy your fleet and then take 3 ticks of 25 (or more if war) roids off you! As Londo mentions there would also need to be a lot of thought about the interplay of classes because this would suddenly have a much bigger impact in combat when you may get wave 1 and wave 3 both fighting at the same time. |
Re: R61 Changes
Further to upsets of current tactical assumptions.
How do you fleetcatch someone when you dont know how long they will fight? How can you fake an attack if the defender is no longer in fear of the real fleet and brings his base fleet out of run and hide for the second tick? Im not saying these are bad things. Tactical thinking has had the same set patterns for ages shaking it up might raise peoples interest. |
Re: R61 Changes
Londo's questions above raise valid concerns. Unlike him, I am saying they are bad things. As far as I can tell, this change just removes the options he mentioned from the game. No point in faking if you only get 1 tick. No point in FCs if you need to send 3 waves and the target only needs to defend against 1.
This would be fine if there were new options to replace them, but unfortunately, I don't see any. And multi-tick combat is not exactly a new idea in this community, so it's not ignorance that leads me to say that. I can only see it as yet another step down the road to everyone doing the exact same damn thing. |
Re: R61 Changes
I would think it is bound to open some new tactical options. But unfortunately at the moment the only one I can think of is the creation of new ways of fighting in a meatgrinder where one, or other, or both sides can fight a first tick on the assumption that reinforcements will win the second. I imagine that during a round some people will think of new things.
Some of the loss of tactical options make assumptions; we assume that a caught fleet will be allowed to change what it is doing mid combat. I would think this is most likely but we don't yet know this. Just as we don't know what multi tick combat means; will it be two ticks, three, ten? Will def and attack fleets be allowed in for the same number of ticks? Will all shiptypes be able to attack for the same number of ticks (that would potentially be interesting if not)? Will cap be the same on each tick? These things mostly have pretty obvious answers but we dont yet actually know that the obvious answer is the correct one! |
Re: R61 Changes
It also asks alot more activity from players. Set your fleets to run/hide one tick, and have it stayhome/fight the next tick.
It sure isnt 'casual' friendly. Edit: ps. I agree on smaller galaxies. |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
Where makes a difference is for defenders and attackers who may have to be on at the right time. But for attackers if you cant be on dont send or send just 1 tick attack. Defenders would need to be clear with DCs that they can only defend one tick as they wont be able to check for a second. Much of this objection could be dealt with if you can change how many ticks you are fighting for while en route so as to be able to adjust for the wave behind. This however makes for a nightmare for dcs. |
Re: R61 Changes
Calcs would have to integrate a way of adding fleets as ticks pass and the whole combat be one calc. Running a different calc for each tick of combat... plus the what if of whether this or that fleet recalls in the middle or not just seems too complicated.
|
Re: R61 Changes
imho, it's a step in the wrong direction. Multi-tick combat might sound awesome, but in reality it will likely kill a good part of the more intelligent gameplay, or at the very least make it incredibly less profitable. I also fear very few community resources will be altered in a sensible fashion in time for r61, let alone in-game resources.
Further questions that arise are: What impact will it have on caprates, and especially the newly added war bonus? Does it mean we will also see a return of the military scan so one can make actual bcalcs at eta 4 for all the ticks of battle you are gonna have? Will we have a return of T2/T3 all targetting like we used to have in the days of multi-targetting? |
Re: R61 Changes
I announced this change in particular (multi tick) because I thought it would cause these sorts of questions to arise.
much of the required code changes are in place or will be in place by this weekend. There's some discussion over exactly how we handle the waves on the alliance def page (and, to a slightly lesser extent, the galaxy status page). I think it's worthwhile experimenting. Cap rates will be reduced and the A/C and D/C rates will need to be considered and changed, as has been mentioned - we will generally need higher A/C and lower D/C (with particular interest around EMP) to allow for multi wave to be covered. We're also looking to tweak the bcalc slightly to allow for more support for multiple ticks. I was honestly thinking of 2/4 rather than the old 3/6. I admit the fleet catching question is interesting - I'd prefer to have these discussions in the next 1-2 weeks rather than just as signups open though :) |
Re: R61 Changes
I'd prefer to have these discussions before you've pretty much finished the implementation.
|
Re: R61 Changes
I think its too rushed and is a very big change to the game, i just feel the time could be better spent making changes that will help to attract players than to make things more complicated.
Current issues i see: .Too few galaxys - related to shuffle and bp size .Too few players .1 on 1 alliance wars not possible - war feature is good but stats forces block wars (as well as politics), eg, ND/Ults could only make small gains on CT and P3ng/CT could only make small gains on ult... 1on1 was stalemate. .Politics... that's a community problem but related to the previous issue as well as complete over reaction to gal raid incs. .Dependency on scanners - should we be thinking about abolishing most of the scan/amp requirement, it would make it easier for small tags and lone players. .Players choosing wrong race - stats related again but players end up resetting or quitting the round because of it, maybe a return to tech tree would make things more flexible and allow for people to change direction after the first week. one feature the other game allows you to reset your tech tree, not your planet, research or devs. Alliance-less planets 174 - how many of these are new players that fail to get into the game or are bashed to quitting, there are plenty of tags that could take them in and support them. we should aim to get this number down or make it easier for those to survive without an alliance. I'm sure there is more issues or things we can do but it would be good to discuss them first. |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
|
Re: R61 Changes
Its simple, PA team saw my return and were inspired to release the changes they have had ready.
Thank me later :salute: |
Re: R61 Changes
If I wanted to play p l a n e t i a, I'd be playing p l a n e t i a :/
|
Re: R61 Changes
Nobody wants to play... that.
|
Re: R61 Changes
I wonder what impact multi tick combat will have on alliance attacks and worry that it might have a rather negative side effect.
Might not BCs want to avoid piling their fleets up over several waves? If that is the case then the obvious solution is to have a very large number of planets up with 1 wave on each. The unfortunate side effect of this would be that everyone is attacked much more often than at the moment, and frankly it is probably already too often. Each time attacked results in a missed night's sleep for many, something which is not sustainable if it happens every two or three nights. Clearly this is only one possible outcome but the other solution is also negative; attacks get spread much more throughout the night to avoid the same ally's fleets getting piled on top of each other. This means instead of having to be up for say 3 hours you have to be up for 6; might as well not sleep at all! Of course we might continue the same old way with a wave per tick and I am sure that HCs will love having to mediate all the arguments over piggying! |
Re: R61 Changes
Eonium coming back as fuel too?
|
Re: R61 Changes
Multitick combat is a way to fight the PaX/PaN bandwagon effect.
Certain days alliances can be hit by 3-4 times their membee number over a period of 4 hours. We need smaller gals, perhaps half the size if today to make this even remotely possibole |
Re: R61 Changes
Appocomaster,
When did you speak to players about these changes? I do not think you did, not on a larger scale. Wouldn't it be better to try to consult the #alliances people? To be direct: multitick combat is about the worst idea I have heard in years. When we were young, up until round 9.5, multitick attacks/defences were the default. We did have a WAY different playerbase then though. We had overactive teenagers with no real life but to jerk off (or finger) and constantly monitor their planet day and night. Calcing what tick to recall, micromanaging the defence ticks also. Multitick combat requires micromanagement, but in the last few years, EVERY CHANGE you made, invoked more and more idleness and ease of use. Players have gotten accustomed to being lazy, except for a few dozen. Do you REALLY want to kill off the overaged remnants of this game so quickly? PA Team really lost it. Normal people (who can't be online for ticks and ticks on end to micromanage) will just give up and stop bothering or won't even play after their first crash. Personally I will just not play (it will be my first round without funcitonal planet since round 2, so you could say I have endured every shit change so far!) and i hereby invite everyone to declare the same. What was the URL of the censored game again? |
Re: R61 Changes
shit change i agree with remy ^
|
Re: R61 Changes
Another addition :
When did ANY of the ones who decide these changes LAST play a real round themselves? You all have NO clue how cramped this game has gotten in such a small universe. In a way this game is MUCH more difficult to play then 10 years ago. And you want to add more stress ? Ace for instance hasnt played a real round after round 20 (i think), when he became MH. Even when I returned to the game from being MH in round 34 (having been MH since R18 havoc) I discovered how totally changed the game was not only technically, but also in gameplay, alliance wars, blocks, etc. Cin, Poco, Fiery, Ace, Lunar, Mark, whoever is on PA Team now, unless you experience the killzone yourself by playing a full round with a real planet in a real alliance, you really should NOT EVER decide such huge changes just by yourselves. Who do you think you are? You have no clue. This game exists ONLY because the players think it's still playable, not because you have such smart ideas. You REALLY should play real round sometime and then rethink stupid ideas. |
Re: R61 Changes
This has been suggested by the playerbase for quite a long time Remy
|
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
|
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
|
Re: R61 Changes
Multitick combats
|
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
btw, the point is not if multitick battles are fun or not, but wether they are possible in the current universe. If 1000 people tell me it does not hurt to set yourself on fire, it still is a stupid idea! |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
personally this has me doubting very much if I will play at the level I intended to as I just don't have the time to check if I can stay for a second tick of combat/roidcap every day. I mean, it is hard enough as it is checking every tick if I can fight my fleet the next tick defensively (proven by my defcrash this round). I really don't think I can be bothered enough to do so EVERY damn attack. |
Re: R61 Changes
Well it will solve a lot of the said bandwagon effect.
But that MT stats will work dependant of the stats, if we keep having madmen making the stats, and admins who cant see how it will work at a larger extent to alliances, then dont do it. Im sure the amount of ships killed was brought up by the brazillians last round, the risk of landing a attack is just to big if any losses are involved |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
All 3 of your remarks have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of multi-tick combat, so please get back on topic or gtfo of this thread tyvm. |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Add to gm's list. -The reduction of tag sizes -Abolishing late starters i.e. making them random. All they do is make t10 galaxies stronger and impossible to hit, particularly when they consist of double the planets they should. It's not fair on anyone. Seriously. Get it together. Or I to will no longer play this game and I know I'm not alone. |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
During one night you can get 6 waves over 6 hours, with this change as proposed, only 3 waves. |
Re: R61 Changes
so before with 6 fleets we could do 6 ticks of incs, now we can do 12 ticks of incs.... that helps!!!
|
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
The total damage and cap will stay the same, but will take longer time |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
Quote:
Regardless of that, 2.5 allies (150 members) will still easily put over 200 fleets on an alliance of 60, still exhausting them of def (remember, lower D/C also goes for deffleets!) after roughly 100-120 incoming fleets. For the attackers to still all attack at the optimum time, they will generally require more targets and as such it will likely lead to fewer waves on more targets. This means the only likely difference from now is instead of 3-5 waves on 20-30 members that get targetted now, it will be 2-4 waves(4-8 ticks) on 30-40 members. So for individual members it will likely mean less roidloss, but the roidloss will be spread among more people in that alliance, leading to effectively the same loss for the defending alliance and the same GAINS for the attackers, and thus the same incentive for alliances to flock together while attacking. Furthermore, because alliances will require more targets in the optimal timeframe, instead of planets getting incs once every 2-3 nights during this gangbanging, planets will more likely get incs once every 1-2 nights. And as those incs will show up during a longer timeframe (3-7 ticks instead of 3-5 ticks) players have to be around longer to arrange def. Add this to the fact that you will need to do more calcs both defensively and offensively (fleets recalling, additional fleets arriving etc) the game will effectively become way more timeconsuming, and players will burn out that much faster. Back in the day, you could effectively go weeks without getting major inc. With the small universe we have now, not getting incs for 3 days straight is a blessing. |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
To put it short, if the waves show up on a wider time spread, yes they are easier to cover. Top gals these day seems to be able to cover a lot just on cross def ingal, and im pretty certain this will be easier with multi battle ticks. If the attacker can only stay for one tick, cus there was some "late def" showing up, it will cut down on the roidlosses. If a alliance have to spread their attacks over more gals, yes it will be harder to land for roids. I also would claim that to make MBTs to work, you would have to cut down on planets per gal. Quote:
Quote:
People will just not claim and attack planets wich is skinny on roids. Ive actualy experinced multiple times that members have been trying to cheat the system, and attack outside of raid or outside of the set LTs. Quote:
Having too many waves over a short time period makes DCing harder. During heavy wars in the past(FAnG R45-R49) and Spore(R51-55) it was very common for us to make sure all waves appeared at the same tick to make DCing even more confusing, putting in mind that their members perhaps only had to wake up one time each night to send out all their 3 def fleets, we found this way more effective. I dunno wich alliances you were playing for back in the days, but it was pretty common for me in both PA and P-L-A-N-E-T-I-A to get incs every night i had roids worth attacking, and it still seems to be the same even today. Im sure RainbowS, not being in any "major" wars this round have had members with 150-200 incs so far, so going 12 hours without incs "on average" would be a blessing. |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
|
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
|
Re: R61 Changes
Can we make all shipclasses same eta then? I already struggle launching / landing / returning my bs fleet in time to launch another attack and I don't plan on getting up at ungodly hours to send my shippies in a browsergame. (I'm not 17 anymore)
|
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
You cannot attack every day with bs then if you gotta launch at night, and PL is the only option :o |
Re: R61 Changes
Quote:
|
Re: R61 Changes
I'm just gonna put it simply: Multi-tick combat does not work with the current PA, adding more challenge and time consumption to a game that already takes a shitload from the active players will just cause less babysitting for the majority and they'll crash more, get roided more and emoquit even more. There's a lot more than just 2-3 tick combat involved, it affects so many aspects in so many areas of the game that one might not spot at first look. Think about calcing all of the ticks for both def and att, do inc scans get a change to show how long the ships stay, what if there are different ships coming on one of the ticks and so on. I could play a round like this in summer or x-mas rounds, but not on a proper round, 7-8 weeks of pretty much constant PA just doesn't work for me, even if I am online like 28/10.
|
Re: R61 Changes
Also, I keep wondering who are these players that suggest these things... Multi-tick attacks "has been suggested by the players" spoke with several "proper" players and no one knows anyone who has suggested it in the last few years, same with the galfund change "has been suggested by the players" and no one is stepping up to be one of those suggesting players... from what I hear, neither of these came from #alliances (or at least from the actually active players in there).
Can someone pls step up as the suggesting player for these? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:21. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018