R66 Stat opinions
There seems to be some concern that the new changes to alliance defence and Pat's "defensive" set will make it impossible to land anything.
PS: Personally i don't think it's as defensive as certain people claim. So i wanted to float the idea for an alternative set. Based on the short timespan left and the fact it had to be offensive i went with a simple ST design. Pat's set: http://beta.planetarion.com/manual.pl?page=stats Alternative set: http://speedgame.planetarion.com/manual.pl?page=stats PS Neither set is final and the alternative set has just raw base values Which set has your preference and why? PS The poll is just informational to get a quick read on people's opinions without having to datamine the whole topic and figuring out who already posted and who not. The poll will not descide which set is run. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Slightly strange as this is not just a defensive vs attack question its now become a st vs mt also :|
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Who is the alternative set by? Or is it a modification on an old set? (Taking a quick look through it does not look exactly like any of them).
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Also ST is a possible counter to limit the effectiveness of the new defence feature in the first round it's implemented. It ensures it won't be too strong or too defensive. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Tells you who to complain to if you don't like it! Having an anonymous set without allowing any discussion of the pros and cons of that set would be a very retrograde step in terms of player involvement.
And there really should be an 'I don't like either' option since I don't like pat's set and hate ST (not yet had time to decide if this is actually a good ST set or not). I do not care would be way to mild a reaction. :p |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Isn't it odd that FI and CO in Pat's set are at most average. Does anyone expect them to be picked as strats?
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Jintao made the alternative set.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
I prefer the alt set
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
I like going with ST first round of this new feature. Forces alliances to strategize specifically what ship they want to have set aside as it will be less versatile. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
And yes it's why i suggested an ST set as alternative. I think it will work better with this alliance defence change than an MT or a mixed ST/MT set. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
I find it mad that people would vote for a set that's 30% finished at best over a set that is 90% done and not bad at all.
It feels like people are now voting to weaken a new feature and make pointless, it's an awful feature but this alternative set will make its pro's almost redundant. On a side note docs set is poor, the xan are way too powerful in it and we don't need another cloaked fi round, a lot of work needs doing to it and seeing as he has been working on it for a long time I don't think they will ever be playable. When everyone here is bemoaning the defensive nature of the stats and ults ability to defend better than the rest picking a set where the defence is harder to achieve will just widen the gap :/ |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Quote:
Now with some value, that i naturally accomplish (at least the first 500 ticks) you obviously have to hit bigger planets. And any set that favours forting or 1 fleet covers too much makes landing harder then it should be for my likes. Yes there will always be some planets that you only roid with fakes or when putting on super heavy pressure, but we should try to not make beeing a powerhouse too easy, imho. For the feature - i can't tell how it will work out - but i am willing to give it a shot. Cause change is what this game needs. But yes i am concerned that a too defensive set plus the new feature will kill my personal motivation to play (and maybe those of others 2) - so this was the final reason for me to vote an unfinished ST set over the proposed 90% finished MT set. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
I voted for ST because looking at Pat's set i liked it less. Bear in mind i did not have time to overlook the ST values yet, just init and targeting.
Oh and on a sidenote, i saw a flash of yet different set on xmas server earlier, whos stats were those and can i have another look somewhere? |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Ok now that i checked xmas its absolutely my favourite, please include him in the poll i'd vote for his. tbh looking at early votes we could scrap Pat's set right away and see if Papadoc can come up with competitor to the current alternative.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Quote:
Kaiba; what makes you say the alternate ST set is only 30% done? |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Even if you ignore the eff and cost as a ST set they are very basic, which is as boring as a well groomed MT set |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
I had presumed the effs, particularly the high emp ones to be down to ST. I have to admit I don't remember the effs of previous fully St stats to compare.
What is wrong with the targeting? It looks like it is done with the intention of creating a straightjacket allowing almost no option which I don't like but I presume it is intentional rather than a reflection of an unfinished set. Initiatives I kind of agree, quite a lot of ships with the same initiatives, though mostly not firing at each other. Given jintao's changes to last round to ensure that nothing fires at the same time I find it hard to believe that this is not intentional though. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
I voted for 'alternative set', whichever is presented.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
To clarify the readyness of the alternative set:
The ship classes, targetting, init and type are all final. Most ac/dc values are within the margin where they should be. ~75% done. EMP is mostly set to be 190-220%. In the old days i see it even went over 300%, but i thought that to be a bit too extreme compared to what we are used to. But these still need to be verified and balanced. The readyness of Pat's set: The ship classes, targetting, init and type are all final. AC/DC is 97% done. Just needs to be verified one last time. EMP is roughly set where it should be, but still need to be verified and balanced. Overall Pat's set is a few hours ahead of the alternative set. But the alternative set has a much simpler design making balancing alot easier. Hope this anwsers the questions regarding readyness of both sets. It should also show that the readyness should not be a factor. Feel free to challange the contents of both sets and help find bugs in them! |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Generally speaking, 200ish % emp eff seems fairly reasonable for ST.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
What people don't understand is that if you have stats that are defensive in nature vs offensive in nature is that Ult will still have the same def culture. They will be able to defend roughly the same regardless of stats because the problem isnt their build order or ships its the culture. The type of stats really only affects the other alliances, one of the big advantages that Ult has is they hold value long enough to be able to strike back really hard and well. Defensive stats only help the weaker alliances get good coverage VS ult and others. Offensive stats will only make ult that much strong because they still will have 80-90% coverage.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Wondering if Tia & Kaiba are the same person.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Offensive or defensive stats neither help nor harm Ultores. The relative ability of the alliances to defend remains roughly the same, even if their absolute ability is reduced. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Last rounds stats were slightly defensive and yet no other alliance was able to generate effective defence to counter incommings. Now people are calling for stats that reduce that ability to defend even further. The glaring problem with ST stats is that unless you want glaring holes in your fleet you need to build 5+ different ships. When most alliances normally operate on a 65/35 att/def split this means you end up with at best 25% of 1 ship and 10-15% of another. There is a chance that one of these ships will be for self coverage and not meet alliance eta and be redundant for alliance defence. As last rounds stats show us Ultores is far superior to others when it comes to galaxy defence meaning these redundant ships will still be used by them effectively unlike other alliances. All ST sets do is weaken the defpool available, even more so than they allow for more lands offensively. When you have 1 alliance that can get a 90% def turnout every night against a bunch of alliances that get 40% at best this gap of ability to hold roids and gain value just widens and widens. The Inc stats show that ult still managed to be in the top 2 hostiles to 3 competing alliances last round, still able to roid them to a comparable level to how they were getting roided even with 120+ incs every night for the 2ND half of the round. This means they recover roids/hold roids and build value at a higher rate than others and now you are all asking for an environment that increases their ability to do this compared to their competitors. I genuinely refuse to believe that anyone also enjoys playing in an environment where you cannot hold your roids under the smallest amount of adversity, it's just not fun to have a smaller fleet, less roids and watch all your gains from landing wiped out every time you get above a certain threshold. Yet again this is the environment you are asking for.... |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
It is more about enjoying the key aspect of the game, which is landing succesful attacks, be it for the glory in roiding a powerhouse, the xp involved or the free roids. The standard casual player in a mediocre alliance will be roided anyhow, no matter if the set is defensive or not. As he will simply not always get the defensive support due to several possible reasons. Be it himself failing to spot a fake, no defence been sent from ally/gal or whatever ****up/disability. It doesnt matter how many holes his fleet setup has. Personally i dont even think that the described casual dude is bothering with roid loss too much (hes used to it anyhow), as long as hes able to succesfully land his fleet on someone else. Now if we use a overly defensive set the only ones benefiting are the 100 planets, that dc themselves, get the alliance and ingal support and spot the fakes coming at them. The key-factor here is reducing incoming-waves before they even launched - which is usually achieved by forcing your opponent to use many fleets each wave. So lets say Alliance A is sending 49 att fleets on 1 gal consisting of 7 hostile planets: Thats either 7 waves each planet (1 fleet attack) in a very attack oriented setup, where every planet has their holes in fleetsetup, or 2 waves each planet if you have to use 3 or 4 attack-fleets each wave. So what's easier to cover ? 7 waves on your planet, or 2? Even if those 7 waves can be covered by just 1 fleet each, its 7 fleets your opponent has to use... Finally, why is it so hard to bring down ult, asc, apprime or whoever was the top shots at their times? Usually those alliances should crumble soon when beeing steadily hit with about 100 fleets at night. The issue is that the most alliances around wont uphold the pressure of sending this constant amount of incs as quite many ppl around loose the interest in attacking someone that is getting covered night after night. So the amount of fleets beeing sent is dropping fast, all you have to do is 2-3 nights of hard effort in covering everything. Soon alliances will have to add some unallied planets to their raids to keep motivation up and the number of fleets beeing sent at the #1 is dropping even further. Why am i going on about this? Because in my opinion having the casual and mediocre player beeing able to land (even on bigger alliances) is what keep this game alive. Nothing else. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
I personally say that I barely remember the best attacks I landed, but nights where we covered large incs or where the team pulled together to repel an aggressor are still in my mind (in a gal with dybi normally). I'm sure many people here can agree that that guy turning up at 5 mins to tick with 3 fleets of defence which covers those last 3 incs creates a bigger team thrill than when 5 of you land the 3rd wave on a t10. I would even hazard a guess that the lack of team spirit garnered through poor defensive displays from alliances like CT, p3n does more damage to their ability to win tight rounds than anything else. Any mug can gain roids, as carDi has shown you can even just init them and rank well. It's defence that is where the real game is and you guys want to hamper it :salute: |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
But the universe is (sadly only) consisting of 700 planets, out of which only 1 will actually win and another 29 to make the superb top30. What about the other 670 players (i assume every planet is 1 player ;) ) Don't you think it should be about what keeps them playing ? And thats where i disagree with you, i dont think the majority of those guys enjoy the defensive aspect over the offensive. Though some for sure do. Also in an offensive set you can still defend and enjoy that aspect of the game, it just is harder to be succesful. At the same time i think that quite a lot of ppl dont wanna take part in the communicative aspect, maybe because they dont know about its enjoyment or benefit - or whatever reason. Personally i have some rl friends(played r3-r9.5) that quit playing PA, because they had to be on irc and all that stuff. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
If people are proposing ST stats with the intention to hurt Ultores, they're not going to achieve their goals. Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Jesus christ.. kaiba put a jumper on and pull it down to cover your boner for ultores. Every bloody thread returns to the same circle jerk.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
I also believe that it's not about whether they enjoy the defensive aspect or not, it's more that a lot of them have never experienced it. Not to talk bad of them but a player who has played 30 rounds in HR may never experienced an properly active defensive environment. Maybe hasn't ever woken to see a def page full of white recalls and an irc channel full of chat about the crazy defence of the night before. If you haven't seen it then they cannot know if they would enjoy it or not. But that is something for alliances to promote and encourage, it's more finding the players to take defence by the scruff of the neck and make it happen. Good defence breeds good defence. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
What is the funniest is all my points elude to better ways to counter their effectiveness as a group. Why would I plot against someone I'm a fan of?.... oh yeah that's right you don't actually read the posts you just jump on a troll wagon and presume I'm flaming you |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
First, defense fleets require a return journey whereas the home fleet does not, so all else being equal, it is twice as efficient to rely on your own ships than on those of others: 7--9 ticks staying home vs. (7--9) + 1 + (7--9) ticks defending. Additionally, you can make some use of your ships in the time between the attacker showing and landing. You could use it to fake attack with, or leech defense for a few ticks, or cover incomings on galmates with ships you need yourself, with time left to return home in time to fight your own incs (if they recall prematurely or do not do their research). Someone who has the fleet slot busy defending you cannot do any of these. Second, if you get 3 waves of incomings, your own ships work against all 3 waves, but defense from others can only help against 1 wave at a time. Essentially, with a balanced fleet, you basically get a free defense fleet on every wave: your home fleet. If you have gaps (as opposed to mere weaknesses) in your defense, you give up that home team advantage, requiring more defense than you would if your fleet were balanced. Third, if you rely exclusively or nearly-exclusively on defense to cover certain incs, attackers can send more waves than they otherwise could, because they don't have to worry about countering your own ships. You make a good point, but I don't think it outweighs the 3 factors I listed above. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Being able to fake bigger fleets, activity of galaxy defence and build of it, leaving gaps also gets you smaller incommings of what you are weak to. Not always ofc but a lot of the time a greedy attack team will put more smaller waves against someone who has no def ship against rather than throwing all their eggs in 1 basket on one wave, although you get more waves the waves end up easier to cover than 1 giant fleet sucker. A lot comes down to defence efficiency, if you can rely on your team to recall promotely when their not needed then your defensive turn around greatly improves. Also the less fleets used to cover a wave leads to more incs being covered. Plus if you are self covered vs one type (apart from an uber wave) then your fleet will always be free to help others. This is the other alliances suffer, they use to many small fleets to cover incs draining the available defpool. It's all well that everyone has equal amounts of 2 ships but when you only have 1 slot free and it's taking 4 of you to cover a wave there is a lot of idle ships and not many available deffers very quickly. This compounded by low response to incs and is why they get roided hard on w2-4. |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
It's not very often I post on forums but I got to respond to this post I like the alternative set of stats, they look more offensive and there is scope to fake which should be in single target round. both stats are balanced however just think the alt set will be more fun to play that my main points.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
i do prefer this ST stats, my only point is, whats suposed to stop DE??
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Any feedback as to what stats set are the "bookies favourite"? I like jintoa's set but there are some tweaks I would like him to consider doing.
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Voted for the MT stats, always prefer MT over ST :).
Can't we play with some old stats, from around round 20-30? |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
So jintao, has it been decided which path (set) we are going ?
Signups meant to open today, it would be nice to know which set will be used - even if that set isnt final. Thx for clarifying in advance |
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: R66 Stat opinions
Thumbs up
Thx |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018