Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
i dont get all the fuzz about this multi tick combat - if its prooven to be fail it can be removed after 7 weeks...
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
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)
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
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)
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
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
|
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.