Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Furyous
Listen to this man. He understands what has been good about planetarion.
|
The fact is we are pay to play and you aren't going to get vast numbers required to make what was the turd of rounds purely based on value. Old planetarion was only vaguely fun if you were running an alliance and putting in insane hours to make that alliance even remotely successful, because it was actually quite crap to play, because putting your time into a planet is a pretty dull activity. The PaX game is far far superior to what we had before, simply because there are more ways to gain score than just 'value'.
I agree with you in the sense that alliance value needs to be published, as well as score or you might as well publish neither and make planetarion a guessing game again. I think it would at least, encourage alliances to be more proactive and actually attack other alliances before they get too far ahead. For me this is very much a no brainer.
However I don't see how measuring a galaxy and planet's success by one measure (score) and alliance by another (value) is even remotely constructive as you could be successful in one sense but totally useless in another, which doesn't seem remotely satisfying.
The point I make is that activity dictates value and value dictates who wins battles and usually who wins rounds. However, with XP and measuring by score, you give an alliance that might be less active but maybe more capable/tactically ept to gain on them using XP to compensate for the fact that a value lead is very difficult to break down except in the two situations I described above.
Value rewards activity, XP rewards a player`s ability to exploit an opponents value but without enough of the first, you'll never get enough score from the latter to catch those alliances with value because you won't be landing enough without crashing. In my opinion, if you can overhaul another alliance's score using the XP method, you deserve to win, no doubt about it, as the XP way is hard, except in a different sense.
This is the 'fighting chance' that less active alliances should have - they need not be as active necessarily, but to be successful, they'll have to have some value and play well with what they've got.
Value is dominant enough, we don't need to make it the be all and end all. It already is a large factor in deciding who wins rounds. Just to feed their egos even more, only one alliance bucked the value trend in every sense and that was Ascendancy.