Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
You do also realize that if the cap formulae were not this retarded VB-capping, top players would grow faster and grow out of the range of hitting top300 players much faster. So...yeah...nice solution and all.
|
Considering how few top players there are every round, I doubt that has such a big impact. I agree that a lower value inequality leads to more potential attackers for top 300 planets, but these are a small minority. This should be easily compensated by the reduced cap for higher ranked planets.
I'd be more comfortable with that statement if I had some data to back it up, but I think we can both agree that politics plays a significant role in changes in value inequality between rounds (ie, between pre-VB rounds and post-VB rounds).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
Other great unintended consequences of this retarded crap: Taking chances is less rewarded, making it even more important for top players to avoid attacking other top players, because they'll just reduce their cap further and piss off people whom they can't then get a decent value lead on, so they'll be left exposed.
|
Taking chances is not a good long-term strategy anyway, and every single value player out there knows it. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, you can predict with near-certainty whether or not a land is worth it, given willingness to research the recent behaviour of the target and defenders. Were I to guess, I'd say about 15% of attacks encounter potential fake defence, most of which can be figured out prior to landing.
By the way, which is it? Does VB capping make the game harder for top planets or lower ranked planets?