Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
You won't see more unexpected battles, nor will they be more spectacular, as the intrinsic game-mechanics of never losing more than roidgain/salvage/xp can cover doesn't change through the implementation of multi-tick battles.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
As far as the increased requirement of effort for calcing attacks (and defence), I am personally not willing to commit to that, for the simple reason that this game already requires a fair bit more effort than i am able/willing to give at the times the game requires it.
|
You seem to have answered why there will be more unexpected battles yourself. If people are less able to calc, and there is more uncertainty, then there will be more mistakes and unexpected battles. This will be increased by people forgetting they had their fleets on two tick attack or three tick defend rather than 1 tick they thought and not checking later ticks. I do however agree that it wont make much difference to the number of times a player makes an active decision to fight a battle he knows there will be shiploss in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
If you want more battles, there should be a system that rewards actually fighting battles, that is the only encouragement that people need to fight more battles. If you end up seeing more battles in this system, it will be at the hands of an increased lack of skill or decreased general activity, but not because of any benefits that multi-tick battles provide.
|
Agreed. If this is the aim then the xp formula should give xp for killing and emping ships not just the same as for a clean land. Alternatively go to the system mz has been proposing that decouples score and value completely.