Re: R61 Changes
 

The ship A/C-D/C and roid cap per tick is being changed?
The total damage and cap will stay the same, but will take longer time

Re: R61 Changes
 

And where will the fleets go that compose of the other 3 waves during those 6 hours? yes, that's right, on me during hour 7-8 or on other gal/ally mates that would not have (as many) incs otherwise. Just because they show up at another target or time does not mean they will not have to be defended. And just because they show up at another time or another target does not have to mean they are easier to defend, especially not during a gangbanging.

well, that's quite an assumption right there... I very much doubt maximum roidcap will actually be halved. In the days of 3 tick attacks it used to be 15%/tick, which puts the total roidloss at roughly the same as 2 ticks now.

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
 

I suppose you cannot be european with a day time job and a husband/wife sleeping right next to you.
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.

Im certain that max roidcap will be altered, 15% would perhaps be perfect.

Putting on more targets, getting waves/fleets sent more evenly, gets more difficult when you add more targets to my experince in PA, starting around 14 years ago.
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.

I dont mind having 2 waves each night every 1-2 days, instead of 4 waves each 3-4 waves.
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
 

please! we ptargeted ND for how long this round!!

Re: R61 Changes
 

Obviously not because you just did not want to hit someone else. If it were up to CT neither of the ND wars wouldve dragged on so long

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
 

Valid point.
You cannot attack every day with bs then if you gotta launch at night, and PL is the only option :o

Re: R61 Changes
 

Seeing as I cant reply directly to the thread...Well done admin team. You have managed to successfully kill the game off even quicker. So sick of you and your illogical changes. I wont be signing up again.

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?

Re: R61 Changes
 

not sure they'd be found in planetarion suggestions forums, surprising that these are the ones getting picked and not the ones people have asked for with backing

Re: R61 Changes
 

I have this theory that they decide these ridiculous changes that no one has suggested so that they can forget about PA quicker

Re: R61 Changes
 

Ive suggested multi battle ticks, perhaps not in a single thread, but surely im all for trying this change.
As we have allready put clear is that it will lead to less night time attacking, less mass wavings, and less incs.
The crashing will stay the same, the ship killing will perhaps increase.

Re: R61 Changes
 

absolute rubbish!!

Re: R61 Changes
 

Who has made that clear exactly? you in your single reply to me? with which i absolutely do not agree, i just can't be bothered to repeat myself endlessly.

Re: R61 Changes
 

Have we?
This depends on how BCs decide to set up attacks in response to the change.
Less night time incs only if alliances decide that each wave now takes up 2 ticks/3ticks/however long an attack lasts. Thus spreading out attacks.
OTOH alliances may decide that if all incs are the same ship class - alliance strategies are heading this way anyway - then its OK to allow waves to overlap. This would mean no change to the current levels of night incs.
A third option would be to start attacks earlier rather than let them go on until mid morning, arguably even worse than what we have now.
I dont see how it reduces mass waving at all, indeed it potentially makes it worse since its easier to reinforce an attack that looks like it might be going to fail.

Re: R61 Changes
 

Weedeejem said he cannot keep up attacking every day with BS if he needs to wake up to launch, and im sure more people are ik his situation.
And i think my points are all valid

Re: R61 Changes
 

You have a silly habit of assuming and pretending that all of your opinions are held by the majority of the community.

Re: R61 Changes
 

No, im assuming half of the community dont got a clue what they are saying

Re: R61 Changes
 

Or maybe, just maybe, it could be you - and the MH Team

Re: R61 Changes
 

Those are not mutually exclusive.

Re: R61 Changes
 

Even if that was true that means the other half do have a clue yeah? And still they don't agree with you and think your an asshat.

You and a few stragglers may think it's a good idea but you and your chums do not equate to half the community.

Now I personally haven't played with multi tick attacks, it sounds on paper like a complete horror show. From what I'm getting this means that 3 Xans could in theory 3 fleet me for 18/27 hrs (depending on 2 or 3 tick decision) and all have only launched once and gone offline? Leaving me with a whole day of dcing, is that right??

I am drawn to conclude that this idea was never meant to improve gameplay it's merely the final nail banged in the coffin so there is a big enough player drop off to close the game for good

Re: R61 Changes
 

There was parts of the community slaughtering this rounds stats, telling you what would happend.
Yet there are people who still keeps presisting even after this round has well settled, that something else than stats being awfull being the truth.
So often, most of the community dont got a clue how small changes will alter the game on a larger extent.

Is this multi battle tick change premature if its implented next round? Sure, i can agree to that.
Will it kill of the game? Certainly unlikely.
Will it make the game more time consuming? Perhaps some things will be more time consuming, others not.

Having played both P-L-A-N-E-T-I-A, and PA-PaX-PaN, i can say that from my experince, how PA is today is pretty boring, and your whole round can be "ruined" in a matter of a night, a tick, or a day.
MultiTickBattles will certainly make sure that this can be changed, taking stats tuneing to another level, and make alliance wars more interesting.

Re: R61 Changes
 

This could be done without multi tick combat too so your point is?

Re: R61 Changes
 

Presumably that the reduced lethality of one tick of combat gives you some time to come to your senses before you lose the rest of your fleet the next tick.

Re: R61 Changes
 

You certainly forgot, or decided not to read all the "pros" i was making before this post.

Re: R61 Changes
 

My point being that being FCed, roided from 1000 roids down to 200, is certainly easier with single tick combat.

Over 4 hours that your not awake during night time, it will bring you from 1000 roids to 300, with 2 hours battle tick 15% cap rate it will bring you down to around 500 roids over the same period of time you are sleeping.

People keep saying that to do well in this game, you are dependant at waking up each night, or being awake the whole night more often than you are sleeping through the night. Will this help on this matter? yes, certainly.

Re: R61 Changes
 

Butcher, neither lethality nor cap is dependent upon multi tick combat. So still I don't see what your point is. If you want to fix those it can be done just as effectively in single tick combat.

Did not Shhhh a couple of rounds ago want to introduce a much less lethal set of stats which had massive armor? The community seemed to hate the idea.

I will however accept that the change to multi tick combat provides an impetus to make these changes. It is just unfortunate that there is little evidence these are changes the community wants.

Re: R61 Changes
 

I think the cap rate is fine atm.
And the stats set i will make for the possibole upcomming change of combat ticks will perhaps have more same class targetting ships, and more ships that fire at the same init.
Massive armored stats in current PA makes roidswapping more possibole, and im pretty sure people feared that it would become a round like last round, where people sometimes didnt even check their targets for def due to the nature of XP.
Some parts of the community wanted these stats set, Kaiba being one, so what the community wants is pretty split in opinions.
Even though the community dont like the idea of multicombatticks, they might want the benefits that multibattleticks can/will bring to PA.
Obviously there are pros and cons.

Re: R61 Changes
 

1) I wasn't arguing with you about whether multi-tick battles is good or bad.
2) "But I really, really, really think so" is not a refutal.
3) "Some people are dumb" is irrelevant.
4) "But I am not one of those people" is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Re: R61 Changes
 

#3 I did not say people are dumb, they just either dont understand the dynamics of alliances/politics, or they cant seem to see what small things might do to the bigger picture. This round, and this round stats as an example.
#4 Maybe i will be proven wrong in my theories multitickbattle, time will tell.

Re: R61 Changes
 

i dont get all the fuzz about this multi tick combat - if its prooven to be fail it can be removed after 7 weeks...

lets assume you lower cap rate to 12.5% each wave with allowing 2 tick attacks and 4 ticks defence:

now lets assume an alliance is raiding your galaxy - you get exact the same amount of incs like now - just you have it spread over 2 ticks instead of 1 , while the defence i actually beeing able to fly there for 4 ticks
so thats 1) an additional tick of finding defence for wave2 of your incs and 2) also it enables all defenders deffing your 1st wave to defend your 4th in addition
now if we think about yourself beeing hit by 1 class over 6 ticks (instead of 3) its actually only 2times now you have to arrange yourself defence, once for the first 4 ticks and a second time for the ticks after
i dunno, but i think thats making defending a lot easier ( at least in this hit by the same class scenario)

and for not recieving any defence you end loosing 6 waves with 12.5% roidloss - instead of 3 waves with 25% roidloss

also at the same time a pod fake will only be able to roid you the first tick of a battle (if your active enough to set your homefleet to fight for the second tick)

i agree that it will make PA more random, less predictable, less calcable (did the xan send real?, half?) and it will probably require some more effort calcing your attack (10mins instead of 2mins!?)
maybe we will see more unexpected battles, more spectacular battlereports and generally have a few mins more of victory compared to now

imo its worth a shot

Re: R61 Changes
 

I dont think defence should be made out to be 4 ticks

Re: R61 Changes
 

Oh, yes let's spend 3 rounds developing something just to bin it after a round, just because we were too stubborn to ask for input prior to the development. I know this has already been developed now, but imho, there were more pressing issues that needed attention. Issues that were actually properly supported by a (vocal) majority of the universe. Not only that but from reading between the lines on what appoco said earlier I am going out on a limb here and say that it will not be properly implemented on some fairly crucial parts like the alliance def page, the (badly implemented as it was) attack page and the bcalc for instance.

If you want to make defending easier, there are easier, less development-time consuming ways. Think about defensive stats etc. But as defence will become easier, and attacks less effective, the incs you'll get will likely be larger, or at least you'll require more incs to even start losing roids. That means more gangbanging is needed to balance out the big/good and the small allies, and it becomes more and more about who you know, and who you manage to group with. I believe that all of the last 20 rounds (the amount of rounds we have been playing with approximately the same amount of players) have proven that this is not something that was wanted by the community. Just take the much requested change to the exiling system for instance.

What is with this complete aversion against losing roids? losing roids does not have to be the end of your game. I've lost plenty over the rounds and even when i did i still managed to end up at decent ranks. I have a much bigger aversion againt not being able to get roids, especially when you can't get them from your direct competitor.

If you want a random game, go play a game that involves a dice, not a skill game like chess or PA. There is a reason we got rid of 'chance based asteroid scanning'. As PA is a skill-game, things being calcable is one of the most important aspects of the game, changing this would mean a complete change to game mechanics, so while we are at it we might as well change the battleengine into throwing a virtual dice.

You won't see more unexpected battles, nor will they be more spectacular, as the intrinsic game-mechanics of never losing more than roidgain/salvage/xp can cover doesn't change through the implementation of multi-tick battles. If you want more battles, there should be a system that rewards actually fighting battles, that is the only encouragement that people need to fight more battles. If you end up seeing more battles in this system, it will be at the hands of an increased lack of skill or decreased general activity, but not because of any benefits that multi-tick battles provide.

As far as the increased requirement of effort for calcing attacks (and defence), I am personally not willing to commit to that, for the simple reason that this game already requires a fair bit more effort than i am able/willing to give at the times the game requires it. It's only acceptable for me to increase my efforts if it comes with an increase of return, but alas, multi-tick battles mean my efforts will likely see a decrease of returns. as
a) Faking will be less effective, as every decent player can cover it the 2nd and 3rd tick, especially with the big gaps in ship costs we have seen in recent stats.
b) An increase of available time to send def means general chances of landing for the same amount of roids is lower.
c) As of yet, there is no change announced to how XP gains from attacks are handled, which likely means that the netprofit you get landing 2 ticks of 15% (total 28%) cap will be lower compared to the 1 tick of 25% you get now.

anyhow, that's my pennies in the bank again.

Re: R61 Changes
 

Didn't this game have multi-tick combat for like, centuries?

Re: R61 Changes
 

Actually the theory was that massive armor made the shipstats more defensive, since you couldn't kill your target in 1 tick, so you had to take losses when you landed. ( not my opinion, but thats what people posting thought)

Re: R61 Changes
 

how about trying 1 tick attack 2 tick def for a round instead?

Re: R61 Changes
 

imho, having shipstats with low effs (high A/C low D/C) would be much the same like a 'normal' round, with a bit less importance for init. On one hand it's harder to kill enough to make your target run, on the other hand you would lose less for your cap so it would have a quicker return on investment. I think you would see a small increase in number of battles where there is actual fighting going on with such stats, but imho it would not result in the grand scheme of things.

If you give any set a 20% cut in eff, it might make offensive stats a little less offensive, as they generally rely on having effective low-init ships (or a severe lack of ally-eta defensive ships), and make defensive stats little less defensive as you could land relatively small losses to gain the same amount of roids/xp. Ofc, a lot still relies on the nature of the stats themselfs.

Re: R61 Changes
 

That's something i would be less opposed to, provided stats were less defensive than they are this round, and let's face it... they aren't even THAT defensive this round, had it not been for a select few overeffective low-init ships (war frig, broadssword, rogue, and to some extent the combination of wyvern and guardian).

Re: R61 Changes
 

What is really bugging me is that PA team have invested 3 rounds of development into an idea that 'no-one' has asked for yet have seemingly put 0 seconds of thought into any of the top 5 suggestions/requests on PS. The amount of ppl who have commented on late starters for example and yet nothing from PA team about, then they pull this shite from nowhere. Why????