Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

Gen_Chaos · 11 Jul 2016, 01:52

The only comment I'd like to make about 3:4 is two-fold-- I think they made a good point about a bad idea in Pa, which is the strength of the XP formula in general. XP was a good idea meant to stop "Bob the Builders" from making Pa one big stagnation, but it is far too weighty in the calculation of score. It should be reduced by 75% imo for better game play and less "gaming" the game.

I think a war game should be a war game and not an exercise in trying to figure out how to beat a formula to get a win without actually fighting wars as they might conceivably be fought. If a planet or alliance can have essentially no ships and win a war game, well, that's just stupid and it's a game I have no interest in playing.

But once the point is made it just becomes thumbing noses at the other players. Using this twist of the XP formula to persist and persist and actually win is no different imo than exploiting any other "bug" in the game, whether it was intentionally programmed or not. It's a bug, and it will get fixed next round. So, this is exploitation of a bug.

I say give 3:4 an award for forcing the admins to improve the game formula, but give the planet win to people who played the game, not the buggy formula. I feel bad for the other top 10 who actually worked at playing Pa.

And the other side is simple: I thought farming was defined as allowing people to land without making any realistic attempt to defend your roids, even when you had enough ships to do so. The vast majority of lands on them was pods only, and they made no attempt to seriously defend them. I know in the past players have been kicked out of the round for farming like that. Apparently, if you farm to the whole universe it is somehow better than farming to particular people? I don't get it.

11 Jul 2016, 01:52	#408
Gen_Chaos Registered User Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 39	Re: r67 who will win The only comment I'd like to make about 3:4 is two-fold-- I think they made a good point about a bad idea in Pa, which is the strength of the XP formula in general. XP was a good idea meant to stop "Bob the Builders" from making Pa one big stagnation, but it is far too weighty in the calculation of score. It should be reduced by 75% imo for better game play and less "gaming" the game. I think a war game should be a war game and not an exercise in trying to figure out how to beat a formula to get a win without actually fighting wars as they might conceivably be fought. If a planet or alliance can have essentially no ships and win a war game, well, that's just stupid and it's a game I have no interest in playing. But once the point is made it just becomes thumbing noses at the other players. Using this twist of the XP formula to persist and persist and actually win is no different imo than exploiting any other "bug" in the game, whether it was intentionally programmed or not. It's a bug, and it will get fixed next round. So, this is exploitation of a bug. I say give 3:4 an award for forcing the admins to improve the game formula, but give the planet win to people who played the game, not the buggy formula. I feel bad for the other top 10 who actually worked at playing Pa. And the other side is simple: I thought farming was defined as allowing people to land without making any realistic attempt to defend your roids, even when you had enough ships to do so. The vast majority of lands on them was pods only, and they made no attempt to seriously defend them. I know in the past players have been kicked out of the round for farming like that. Apparently, if you farm to the whole universe it is somehow better than farming to particular people? I don't get it.