R67 Shipstats proposals
Hey all,
Now that R66 officially started, it's time to start looking towards the future. So today we start looking for/working on the R67 stats set. Anyone who wants to propose a set should do so before 26 March and post a link to his/her set in this thread. I do not expect the set to be final, but i expect it to be a first rough draft so we know what kind of set you are proposing. What fields do I expect the proposed set to have?
Again i don't expect the values in these fields to be final. They are meant to give a good impression of the kind of set you envision. Finally I would also like your submission post to include a few lines in which you describe your set and the ideas behind it. No essay's please! After the weekend of 26/27 march everyone will get a first feedback on his/her proposal from me & the community and a next goal will be given. A few guidelines to start with:
The above list isn't final, but it's a starting point so everyone is working off the same base principles. The goal is for appoco to announce R67's set as final at EORC. So people signing up to make a set should be aware they need to develop it during the round and not after the round has ended. Currently we still have patrikc's set from last round which i still like and it's currently the front runner for next round. So the challange to stat makers is to submit an even better stat proposal. Good luck to everyone and looking forward to seeing submissions from all the sailers who were yelling from the shore these past weeks. See this as an oppertunity to be part of the solution instead of the problem. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Stats mafia at work again :salute:
Sets that would fit the bill: R65 R64/R54/R52/R50(wich all is a remake of the same set?) All the other sets from R50-65 would not pass your initial guidelines demands. Could you be so kind to explain: * Steal ships can't chain steal into a class they can't naturally steal into or steal there own class * 2 pod classes / race * Maximum 8 combat ships / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships) * Races have a balanced solo/teamup roiding ability (Not xan fi can roid everything and zik cr can only roid emp) |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
As to why, mostly appoco that insisted on it :p Quote:
It's hard enough balancing races with 2 pods, let alone 3. Let's not overcomplicate a set right now while people are screaming for something solid. Quote:
The more ships the more balancing is needed. Let's not overcomplicate a set right now while people are screaming for something solid. Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
If you want to have a productive chat ban butcher
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
And a lot of sets has broken this "golden rule" without Appocomaster even noticing it. Quote:
Many past sets wouldve been excluded due to this rule. Quote:
And im not even sure if one or two more ship per race would make it harder to balance either Quote:
If one race has excelent defence ships/emp flack, or what not, that is a trade of from having a lesser attack fleet. This is just madness, and again stats mafia at play again, if people aint seeing the red line through all these "demands" they must be blind. The only ones who would get sets accept would be Mz, Tia or Jintao |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Far more important is that races should only steal into classes that they themselves can build. For flak purposes. Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
The reason is "pyramid" farming, or "chain" farming. If etd have a FI that steals CO, and zik have a CO that can steal FI/FR/whatever, people will "abuse this to steal usefull ships". The WP/Agility was actually something i suggested for a xmas round for nostalgia. Its basicly just a confusing damage/armor |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Ok i don't get all the complaints about too many restrictions...
So basically if you ignore the first item it matches what most sets are like already today. So what is wrong with saying what is more or less considered to be the default for the majority of the rounds? Or is everyone just tripping over that 1 item regarding steal ships in non zik races? For all the rest below that it gives you crazy freedom and furthermose appoco is open to anything cause he helped me put that list together based on what's possible inside the current game setup. So overall i would say you have more freedom than ever before since most probably didn't even know these possibilities before today. The only real limitation is not being able to create 5 pods / race and 20 ships / race. But i think 2 pods and 8 normal ships is plenty for a good solid set. So seriously people stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Quote:
Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. 2 pod, mixed ST/MT, no crazy imbalances, not too many ships. We know from experience stats that more or less fit that description tend to create reasonably good stats. But it sure doesn't leave much room for maneuvre for the stats makers, which are the people you've seen complaining. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
I haven't noticed any stats yet, only complaining... |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
We can be the solution when you try and make it so we can only make stats in your image. And 3 pods isn't defensive it does exactly the opposite
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Hold the phone, those are some pretty major game play factors there...Some of that stuff can make a round of shit stats pretty good if tweaked properly. Surely some of those things can be considered outside of a proposed set of stats as well? |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Let's also add that since I read the original post this morning when he posted it he has added like 10 more bullet points
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
I just put it in there to show you around what factors you can build a set of stats. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Although i'm sure some people will object to that being in the stats |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Depends on how 'hard' you want your counters to be, really. If everything has the same init, all that matters is how much value you have available. If everything has a different init, then all that matters is how many fleet slots you have available. There are pros and cons to both aspects, though I'd advise against going to extremes, either way.
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
For example Terran would have DEF but poor damage, like properly weighted in that way. You can raid them but not clean and you wouldn't take silly losses but it would be a battle, same in reverse in that it would take a lot to stop them attacking you but they wouldn't destroy the deffers, I want to make stuff like that. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
The second though, now there's something we could do something with. Many people have said how hard it can be to balance stats since the introduction of Etd - now we could just consign that race to the dustbin (where some might say it belongs). Looking at the number of Etd planets this round they might not even be missed. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
That being said, look at the number of Etd planets last round. I played Etd for maybe the second time.
One of the--if not the biggest--issues is changing Attack/Defense tick(s) as it was in the "old days". Multiple attack/defend ticks... It is a pretty huge issue on it's own, and up until now I didn't know that was something that was up for 'debate'. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
* 2/3 pod set * EMP inn all attack claases excepy FI * Steal-die-ratio undecided atm |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
I've looked over your set BB
First impression - Xan is stronger than it should especially with 3 pod classes |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Comments in the other thread please.
Afaik this was just a "offer your stats thread. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
To all the ship stats designers .... I want more detail in your thinking and explain how these stats will be fun and enjoyable to the masses that play PA
i'll give a weeks grace before I take the stats to the woodshed. Hope to see some good ship stats. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Race spread aint neccesary what i aim for, but roid class spread. Playing with steal-die-ratio might make it more worthfull going zik than only init/dmg/whatever. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Does this mean my set is being ran next round as noone else proposed a set?
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Ohh wait... |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
ETD is always the hardest race to figure out what to do with. Being able to remove it will allow someone to make a set that fits into Jintao's pre-init matrix.
I'm just now seeing this or i would have looked at revising that set i threw together before this round. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Like you would have a clue about that?
He made it when everyone in norse disliked patricks stats. now go work on your own set instead of trolling... |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
I resent being called a valuewhore!
Unrelatedly, after this round, I suspect it'll be a while before another highly offensive set like this one will be selected. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Do you mean a ship with high damage can only kill 1 ship as it only has one gun, even if the damage it deals could in theory kill large numbers of ships? I can see this would make a big difference if there were ever to be a battleship kill ship targeting fi or co. Been a long time since there have been any. While this seems logical I am pretty sure it is not what happens today... 4k clippers this round can kill a lot more than 4k harpies (9037 according to calc) despite their only having a gun each. Or do you mean something along the lines of what we had with terran and etd a few rounds back where there is a big gap in the armour between the two? It was possible for the low armour fleet in a teamup to be wiped out and a good chunk of the high armour one survive. If this is the case then the harpy has to be just about the worst possible example as it is regularly one of the highest armored ships in the game in comparison to its cost. Quote:
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
As i said, you were never intending to make any. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
if 2000 guns with 1 damage each fire at 200 harpies with 4 armor each and 600 phantom with 2 armor each, then 200 * 2000 / ( 200 + 600) = 500 guns fire at the harpies 600 * 2000 / (200 + 600) = 1500 guns fire at the phantoms. This causes 125 harpies and 600 phantoms to die. If you add up the gunpower need to kill that number of ships, you get 125 * 4 + 600 * 2 = 1700 gundamage. The 300 gundamage is lost forever. This is flak, and it's the reason you don't create huge discrepancies in the size of ships in the same class. See Ter/Xan De in r50 for a counter-example. It's actually worse than that. If the ships behind the 2000 guns have a T2, and there's a bunch of Beetle present as well, then those 300 guns that went up in smoke before will now fire at the Beetles. And I can make it even worse: say those guns are contributed by 2 types of ship: 1000 from a ship with a T2, and 1000 from a ship without. Both ships have the same init, and they fire at 250 Harpies (1000 armor total) and a bunch of Beetles. The order in which those ships are given a chance to fire is undefined. If the ship with a T2 goes first, it kills all of the Harpies, with no guns left over, and then the ship without a T2 does nothing, because there's nothing left to fire at. If the ship without a T2 goes first, it kills all of the Harpies, but then the ship with a T2 does get a chance to fire at the Beetles. This can be a difference of up to about 30% extra value killed (50% of ships, 60% T2 eff), and the only way you can know which it is, is by running a bcalc. And no, the order of the ships on the stats page is not the order used by the combat engine, and neither is the reverse order. All in all, the combat engine code is not fun. I spent some time figuring out how to write a bcalc, for use during the stats creation process (manually creating 10x10 bcalcs is boring as hell), and this is the reason I didn't go through with it. Quote:
Quote:
Quite frankly, I've never been really sure what it added. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Armor is how many shots a ship can take, when it reached 0 the ship is destroyed. Init is the same as today. Agility is the ability to dodge shots. Weaponspeed is the chance to land shots. The formulae was something like ( 50% + weaponspeed of the ship shooting - agility of the ships being fired at ) Guns is the amount of shots fired each tick. Power is the damage of the gun. EMP ships always hit, E/R is the chance of to avoid being EMPed. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
I asked if i could use it for a "xmas/community" nostalgia round stats, thats all. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
I did not say I needed an explanation of early round stats just a reminder of weapon-speed and agility as I don't think Jintao was proposing reusing a set from prePAX. Apart from these two they are very similar anyway.
Thanks for your detailed explanation mz. Certainly does not sound very sensible as it is. |
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:58. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018