Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Well he is known for having a very narrow way of thinking.
General people should avoid listening to mafia people.

If say FR is targetted by FI/CO/CR/DE, should they have the same EFF as if they were only targetted by FI/CO in a ST stats?

Lets say the viper target FR, but terran dont have any FR ships, and ETD/Xan got FR wich is cloaked, should the eff be the same if it was ter and not xan having fr?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

It's perfectly fine for some ships to have lower efficiencies than others.150-160% for T1 and 90-100% for T2 is about normal. Whether you think the effs should be at those numbers is a different matter.

The whole point of averages is that some values are higher than the average, and some are lower. This is elementary school level math.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

No, the whole point of averages is so the mafia can claim something is right and wrong, so we keep runnibg similiar sets over and over again.

If the class team up of a EMP teamup is low inits instead of high inits, should the eff be the same?
Having Xan/Cat team up with low init vs Zik/Cat team up with high inits is not the same.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I don't know why you're listing reasons why ships may deviate from the average.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

But then again, the mafia would never "know why" anyone would be listing reasons for something being wrong or right in any stat set.

With a new head in stats, who actualy seems to not be one of the mafia, we have gotten ourself "guidelines" on what stats is acceptable or not, ofc the issue being no sets(except yours) was ever acceptable.

Rogues/p3nguins/TheoDD/Jintao(stats chief) seems to be focusing on offensive stats, where all races have equal solo options. Not focusing on allie strats, or team up synergy/power.

Tiamata has a very mathematical approach, every race/ship class is more or less equal in amount of ships fireing at it, and the amount of ships in that class.
If say terran dont have a DE, it could be a very big problem and adding a DE ship to terran wich people would most likely not build would be the solution.
Also the average EMP eff very often is the same accross the board, no matter what "strat option" is favourable.
This would ofc work very well if on signup races where equaly spread.

My approach is very anti mafia, ive started in the opposite end, on what "allie strats" is avaible, and try make all of em(CO vs FR vs DE vs CR vs BS vs MIX) more or less an even fight.
This ofc has been upsetting the mafia, "WHY DOES XAN HAVE 3 PODS ITS OP", or "WHY CANT ZIK SOLO ANYTHING, NOBODY WILL GO ZIK", and a lot of other excuses why a set like this(not necessary mine) would not be playable.

Ive been offering a my set(small changes every time ofc), for 5 rounds, and i have made sure my emp average is more or less on point. If Tia/NoXiouS claims that "this is how emp eff is suppose to be", i mustve miscalced the rounds wich i compared my sets towards.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

My r50 stats had an average 154 EMP eff T1, mean 156, in a range from 115 to 190, and an average of 98 EMP eff T2, mean 91, in a range from 78 to 124. That seems be about what people want, since they've been used 3 times, though undoubtedly with some changes to these effs after the first time. I can't be bothered looking it up for any other sets. Call it an exercise for the reader.

So, if your primary interest is getting your stats accepted, then the above numbers seem a good guideline. If, however, you just want to jerk off and repeatedly list the fundamental character flaws of everyone who disagrees with you, then by all means hold firm.

And for the record, that 115-190 range for T1 seems really wide to me. As in, it should probably have been narrower.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

What does TheoDD have to do with this? So far as I can see he has not made a substantive contribution on any of the suggested stats sets for this round.

And Rogues? An alliance dead for rounds and rounds now? So far as I am aware no one in Rogues has ever had much influence over stats, the closest would probably be me, and like you my own proposed stats set (a few rounds ago now) was shot down. Moreover when it did exist almost all the ppl who worked on strategies in Rogues were defensive players rather than offensive ones. You simply degrade your own points by bringing up such things.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

As a general message if you're going to comment on stats, it's best to keep politics out of it as it detracts from the main topic of discussion (stats).

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Rogues is Krypton/reapersix, pretty aggresive posters.
TheoDD is a a seasoned turnip, wich used to come into the discussion with comments like what i described.
My points still remains the same, im not runningg for a popular guy vote.
By real sources, this is how it stands:

5% chance of being run: http://beta.planetarion.com/manual.pl?page=stats
30% chance of being run : http://xmas.planetarion.com/manual.pl?page=stats
30% chance of being run: http://speedgame.planetarion.com/manual.pl?page=stats
25% chance of being https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...iXk/edit#gid=0

I dont like to keep people in the dark, but the set in beta.planetarion is NOT being ran.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

If you're upset about suggestions then go after them on merit rather than use alliance tags to beat people over the head with. We have AD for that.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Now sorry man, i dont remeber voting you to be a "stats expert"?
Can you please explain me why alliance "tag merit" should be "either banned or accept" for posters in this section?
You are a ****ing dinosaur, and im quiet suprised why you are not removed yet, as when you keep adding comments discussiom where you are a fecking unbanable dinorsaurs with ideas/opinions wich dosnt with this century?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Sure. This is strategic discussions, and comments on the stats should be about whether they are balanced and what styles of play they will attract. Now you can use alliances as say context to illustrate playing in a certain way, but using alliances to accuse people of having some kind of agenda is just not done for SD. Decisions on the stats should largely be made in the absence of politics.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Both Patrikc's and M0rph3us's sets are of equal quality if you ask me. Both have some ups and downs to them.

Patrikc's set: Click here
M0rph3us's set: Click here

Currently i'm favoring Patrikc's set to be run in R67 unless someone can find a very good reason to pick Morph3us's set instead.

PS: See this as a last chance for user feedback before final descission is made.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Arent your links mixed up?
Xmas one is Patrikcs?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

If both are of equal quality what is the reasoning behind heavily favouring one over the other?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Thank you for pointing that out, fixed it

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Honestly i'm "favoring", not "heavyily favouring" Pat's set over M0's because Pat submitted his set 2 rounds ago while M0 submitted it 2 weeks ago.

But honestly I'm fine running either set, but if i have to pick between 2 "equal" sets i'll favor seniority because Pat has had more time to balance out things & has been waiting longer.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I prefer Patrikc's set because it has Zik, and the lack of a fifth race in M0's set heavily encourages Fr or Cr ally strats over Fi, Co, De, Bs, which have no teamup options. High risk of leading to a very static universe.

Has anything changed with regards to SKs since last round, or can you still only use them against planets in alliances you're at war with? I ask because if I'm only OK with in-class SKs if nothing changed.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

You probably meant that only FR and DE teamups are possible, and FI,CO,CR,BS have none such options.

Regarding SK's, i wouldnt put them into roiding class if the last round change to their usage would be reverted. So yes, i was assuming that SK's can only be used against alliances in WAR when making my set of stats.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Ah, yes. Somehow I assumed Xan would have Fi pods and didn't bother looking closely enough. I still don't like it, but at least that makes some sense.

I assumed that was the reason for both of you to put them in roiding classes. I just haven't heard anything, and communication has never been PA Team's strong suit, so I wanted to double check. It would be a simple and self-contained change anyway, so it's not really a big deal.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

About pat stats

How we stop BS? Obviously etd will covop Bs pods...

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Drake eff is lame against BS
Roach ****ing strong eff...

Cant see a way to stop pure BS fleets...

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

YES, Xan have Fi pods. You don't make much sense man.
Feels like you looked at that set as long as it takes to realise there is no ZIK.
Fair enough, disliking the set because there is no ZIK is valid enough of a reason.

Just don't make a fool out of yourself trying to talk about anything else set-related then...

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Urgh. The way I misread it was Cr/Fi, not Fi/De. Your response made me think (through no-one's fault but my own) that I misread it some other way.

I looked closely enough to see that there were 8 pods. What classes those are exactly is a side-issue. And yes, I refrained from giving more detailed feedback and/or criticism precisely because I didn't look closely. And even that doesn't matter, because I expect people to consider my arguments, not my opinion.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

http://xmas.planetarion.com/bcalc.pl?id=h9ieh6ykhjhg15j

De body's most of BS since Ter BS doesn't have alot of punch behind it and the etd BS team only helps vs zik

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I have already stated that I don't like pat's set and that is still the case. It has lots of ships that seem pointless, an odd cat fr hole (which I acknowledge has to a some extent been fixed), is too close to ST for my liking (a purely personal pet hate), and it is very fort based. Out of 10 fleets the most obvious fleetbuilds (to me anyway, I accept this is a little subjective) have their anti fi firing down in 7 cases and anti co in 7 cases. This of course might have the result of making fi co much more viable than they initially look as there may well be little ally def available.

I have to admit that someone (I presume Jintao rather than pat) has made some effort to meet my criticisms for which I thank you. I see the Cat spider has been made T1 fr with co added as T2 for the Widow which seems a sensible change.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

this stats too confusing after a easy ST one haha

DE & FR firing 4 classes etc.. too much things to check =p

but idd.. a tag playing heavy DE can handle BS.. but any other tag will suffer to stop it... imho

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Something minor to fix; emp res of the rambler is much lower than its escorting fi. http://xmas.planetarion.com/bcalc.pl?id=njtd93iams0jb5o at the moment all ramblers can be empd when only three quarters of sylphs are empd and just over half of creditors. I tend to agree that the pods should be the first to be fully empd as it is very annoying to emp all the combat ships and have pods slip through but this disparity is too great.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Spider was always T1 Fr in my set (Cath needs it). Jintao suggested moving Co to the Widow entirely rather than a T2 on the Spider. The Spider definitely doesn't need Co T1 as it was before, I think Xan Co will have trouble enough with 4 Fi anti-Co.

Agreed on the Rambler. ERes seems to have been changed a fair bit since last time I tinkered with it; Illusion's way too high now, for example.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Only thing disturbing me a bit more than anything else in Pats set is the targeting being a tad unfair towards the lower hulls... FI and CO targeted by each other and FRDE, FRDE targeted by each other and FICO + CR on FR, BS on DE, CR targeted by FR and BS, BS targeted by DE and CR. I can live with that ofc, but kinda makes me feel that (borrowing BBs words) the "mid" and "low" tier alliances will mass hulls 3.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Possibly, but many of the fleets based on cr or bs have big ally def problems which is most damaging to just those "mid" and "low" those alliances that benefited most from ally def improvements last round or else have very spread out fleets. If anything I would be more concerned about what you are presumably calling the "upper" tier of alliances who are good at regularly prelaunching defence who should benefit most from such a stats set. That is of course not to say that you won't be correct but there is certainly a downside for them.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I dont really understand that comment, targetting looks symetric.

Fi - Co , FR
Co - Fi , FR, DE
FR - Fi , Co, DE, CR
DE - Co , FR, CR, BS
CR - FR , DE, BS
BS - DE , CR

2-3-4-4-3-2.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I am hoping that this is just because SKs are always left until last but at the moment their cost seems really weird compared to other ships and each other. For example the Termite is really cheap for a battleship, while on the other hand the Liquidator, a cruiser, is much much more expensive than it and is more expensive than all the other etd cr ships.

This of course affects the calcs too; the termite is frozen long before everything else in a cat bs fleet while the Liquidator is merrily going on its demolishing structures while everything else around it is out of action. http://xmas.planetarion.com/bcalc.pl?id=xmrfuxjtbfku3e6

Thanks to Drew for pointing this out.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

This is entirely due to the ERes of the respective ships. Cost has nothing to do with it, except indirectly: stats makers are naturally more inclined to give expensive ships higher ERes. The bcalc doesn't look at ship cost, though.

This does not affect the validity of the rest of your post, though, it's just a small nitpick.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

[re: booji] This is because my draft did not have them in attack classes and Jintao has moved them there recently, as I made them before SKs could only be used in wars (and because I never bother with SKs until the rest is balanced).

Thanks Drew, we'll get on that soon.


It's an important distinction though, because I like using cost differentials to amplify a ship's strengths like the Mantis vs Bs. It's cheap, therefore very good flak, but actually has the highest ERes out of all Cruisers.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Leave me out of your lunacy this is my first post on this thread so clearly i have been influencing the discussion.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Congradulations patrikc, your set will be run for R67. Appoco will announce it officially soon.

Thanks to all those who helped and submitted sets. I look forward to seeing what sets are offered for R68.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Closing this as ship stats now final