[Light]

Originally Posted by Influence

No we're trying to say that instead of gaining that 200k score, which is worthless in this valuebased game, you should be able to trade in that 200k score for 200k shipvalue. And with that reward the player that dares to attack up over rewarding the player who noobraids and gets 75 consecutive roids each and every night.

Im really not a fan of XP at all but i'll give it more thought.

I seriously do not like your shipvalue or trade in idea though. If the player gains resources from an attack, they should get it instantly and not be hidden. Their is no sense in adding extra mechanics into the game for no real gain when it could just be given at the time of the battle.

What you're actually suggesting is a scalable attacker salvage system, where the bigger the defending planet is.. the more salvage the player would get (I know, not strictly salvage as isnt dependant on shiploss).

I would probably nerf XP or nerf the amount of resources you get from it though, as it should be a supplement to attacking, not the sole reason.

While i agree with you it will make defending top players harder (as more ppl are willing to land), you shouldn't forget that in the current setup it is harder to defend versus those top players aswell. For instance this round i've seen all top 10 players hitting just above their bashlimit, where there were 8 to 10 fleets needed to defend against it. On the other hand for those players to hit the top player back they need at least 3 to 4 fleets to safely(read without losses) land, and even then he would need only 1 additional deffleet to get covered. This results in a situation where if you have not performed too well in the first 200 ticks of the roidrace you have no chance to get back into it.

Dont get me wrong, i understand that alot of top players get their by noob bashing.. Everyone does it, when top players do it.. it just means their isnt anyone else able to cover it with 1 fleet (while when a middle-tier person does it, a higher-tier can defend it easily).

And how well have those implementations helped in tackling the problems of noobraiding and the lack of incentive to allow a bit of losses?

1. Bash limits aren't effective until later in the round when the difference between the noob and the top players grow. The current bashlimit allows top players to hit over 50% of the universe up to half way the round, and with late signups being supported through the galaxy and alliance fund to attack smaller/allianceless players there is no chance for them to get into the game until around tick 800+
2. Variable roid cap is ineffective as top players can send out half (or even a third) of their fleet to players just around their bashlimit and still get way more roids then anyone on their bashlimit can.
3. Like you said yourself XP is useless score and doesn't add anything but score so it isn't worth it to sacrifice an easy land for taking a risk.

wow, that's some great implementations to help solve the problem there...

That was my point, we keep adding in new features to encourage players to hit the top players and to protect the lower ranked players.. but none of those address the problem that noob bashing is alot more profitable on average than hitting big players (more so, that even though big players have a large amount of roids you could cap.. you need to teamup with more players and so share those roids, so you end up capping the same amount anyway).

And why are they much less likely to land succesfully? because there is nothing to be gained except useless score...

They wont land if its not profitable, with the XP system giving resources.. you're faced with a problem, that some fleets may need to be covered 100% (as in 99% EMP'd/killed/both) in order to stop them landing, as if they still cap.. it could be profitable for them.

I would suggest handing back the 120k score in 120k shipvalue rather than in 120k resource value.

Imho there are 2 implementations possible in this 'XP-resource-trade' system.

In implementation 1 you keep the current XP system, but you are able to trade in the XP you've build up into resources at any time in the game. Opening up deeper tactics like 'resource hiding' to keep your subsequent XP gains as high as possible.

In implementation 2 the XPscore gets traded to resources straight after battle, and rename it to 'looting gains' or 'spoils of war'. Ofcourse the target planet does not loose these resources as their resources are kept in heavily guarded resource bunkers etc, but are looted from the population of the planet.

I personally prefer implementation 1 because of the deeper tactics it enables. However, in cooperations with other adjustments that focus more on population management, implementation 2 opens up more possibilities later on in development (like killing a certain amount of the population in an attack etc)

There's no reason to make a system more complicated when it doesnt need to be.

If a player can hide their value but get it at any time, then you once again encourage players to pretend to be weaker than they are.. this means they get around the bash limit and would get more XP than they should. If you're going to make XP more important, you cant allow players to artificially lower their ranking to gain more. In the same way that hidding production was removed from the game as it causes too many balance problems. It also makes people not want to get to #1, as it isnt the best position to be in.. when in reality, they are #1 just hiding it.