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. |
Re: galaxy score suggestion
sounds like a good suggestion :)
|
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.
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Alltho best fix would be to kill exile and planet jumping :)
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
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. |
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
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 |
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
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) |
Re: galaxy score suggestion
And i still dont see how they saved roids.
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
As they dont count for score, the tag will not lose any score for it when they die. |
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
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 |
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
|
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.
|
Re: galaxy score suggestion
Quote:
However in almost all circumstances I see these lands are indeed bad for both. My argument has always been if it’s 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. |
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 04:37. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018