Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
It was your argument that it forces top players to attack bigger targets. My argument is that it keeps them longer in range to feed on smaller planets and promotes risk aversion, so in effect it does the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.
And stop trolling, life's not binary, almost everything has both positive and negative effects, such as making it easier to bottom feed but harder to run away in value. My issue is that it promotes promotes one style of play over others and tries to artificially manipulate the rankings, which is hardly ever a good idea. Instead of trying to find an actual fix for bashing (the solutions already existed, I know because I helped formulate them), they went with a fix which actually punished efficient play more so than anything else.
|
It seems like the latest trend on the PA forums to accuse everyone you disagree with of trolling. The implication of it is that you're calling me dishonest, and you know me better than that.
Life is not binary and neither is PA. However, the only direct result VB capping has is that it makes attacking down the food chain less effective by reducing the profits of such. A logical result of this is that value is distributed more equally, which increases the number of potential targets for most planets. This is all known information.
I think we can also agree that this has not got a lot of influence on the actual rankings. Bad players will still perform badly, just not
as badly. Good players will still perform well, just not
as well. It's the step size between ranks that changes, not the ranks themselves.
I would argue that in the exchange of an increased number of targets for highly ranked planets, for lower capping off small targets, the smaller players have the better deal. There are very few planets that cannot target top 300 planets. The number of fleets they can bring to bear, though impressive in size, is very low. Meanwhile, the cap of each of those fleets is reduced significantly.
So even if you're right, even if this formula encourages bashing (which I still disagree with), then the smaller planets still come out ahead. Which is exactly what this formula was intended to do.
As for your argument about risk aversion, you have so far not countered my arguments against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
Oh, and just because you're chicken-shit scared of attacking bigger planets, doesn't mean some of us haven't been actively doing just that, going back nearly as far as this game is old.
|
Surely you can do better than inaccurate ad hominem?