[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Sorry but the whole point of Haers post was to create a 'formula' to tell if a set was good or bad. I am just replying that its not doable for the above stated reasons. The fact that Haer has replied to claimed that politics is 'noise' that can be removed from the equation just shows what an ill thought idea it actually was.

You have made statements. I am not convinced they are correct.

Originally Posted by Kaiba

You talk of cause and effect and reckon that stats influence the rest rather than the rest influencing stats (or atleast how the stat set plays out), that is completely false.

Stats influence alliance strategies, alliance strategies influence how stats play out, and together (with a bunch of other mutually influencing factors that I've listed above) they determine how good the round is.

Originally Posted by Kaiba

The whole matter of an alliance picking its strategy based on its political intel of what other alliances are doing and basing its race choices and class choices based on what others are doing means that stats are always open to political influence from even before tick 1.

I don't think I've ever seen an alliance discuss its race strategy for the upcoming round in any terms other than the cold hard numbers of the actual ship stats, and the way the characteristics of the races fit into an alliance's preferred way of play for that particular round, be that fort play, trolling or just faffing about. I do not remember ever hearing anyone say "well, CT is going X, so we should go Y", and such a statement carrying any weight.

Originally Posted by Kaiba

There has been rounds in the past where a race considered OP has faltered because it did not fit into the political plans of alliances in that current round. Who is to say if that set of stats was re run 5 rounds later that the OP race wouldnt be picked by 50% of the playerbase as the layout of the universe changed and drastically change how those stats play out as the distribution is different.

Give me 3 examples of stats in which a race was played by less than, say, a sixth of the active universe ('not fitting in the political plans'), and taking up more than a quarter of the top 100 ('considered OP').

Originally Posted by Kaiba

MCs have changed the playstye of a lot of players and some alliances drastically in the last 3 rounds let alone the last 10 with all the other small changes PA Team has introduced (look at how underplayed Zik is now salvage has been smashed around repeatedly).

What's with all the ****ing straw men, dude. Once again: I'm not arguing that the stats are a self contained unit that can be argued about while ignoring everything else. I'm [i]explicitly saying[i/] that we're dealing with an interwoven system of influences that together determine the round. If it wasn't, then the r30 stats would have worked just as well in r51 as they did in r30.

Originally Posted by Kaiba

I actually like the idea of RNG stats. I think it would be a breath of fresh air to the game as their would be no influencing of the stat maker by a select few and no fiddling of stats which end up changing a creators original idea into some horrid mess.

If the stats don't matter, then 'influences of the stats maker by a select few' do not matter. If randomness creates acceptable stats, then stats don't become 'horrid messes' when they're fiddled with. And if randomness creates acceptable stats, then the 'original idea of stats makers' is not important.

Originally Posted by Kaiba

I would actually go one step further for balance and cap the amount of each race that can be picked by the playerbase. 20% of each, there is 2 weeks of pure downtime inbetween rounds so there is no excuses for missing signups. Intial cap at 100 (low end expected turnout of players) rising by 20 after 400 planets have signed and again every 100 etc.

I don't even know where to begin.