View Single Post
Unread 22 Sep 2010, 23:24   #75
Ave
Registered User
 
Ave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
Ave is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Planetarion Redesign

Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
It makes it harder to defend anyone. We can certainly make PA attack centred and take away the defending portion of the game but i'd find that rather boring especially with the lack of social interaction. There has to be a balance between how easy is it to attack and how easy it is to defend, otherwise the game is either stagnated or just a game of roid swapping where people cant defend properly.



If XP was doing its job we wouldnt need fleet morale. I certainly dont want 2 new complicated formula features to solve one problem especially if it creates major value problems.



but what numbers?

If XP can be traded for resources? then its basically attacker salvage? then how do you decide how much resources?

The average land in XP doesnt yield much XP but their are occasional lands which get massive amounts. So if XP gives you score and resources, then you've opened up major problems to try and balance it. Why isnt roids and score enough?

You've also got the problem of strategys. If XP yields resources as well as score, then CR/BS rushing at the start becomes overpowered, as they always get a huge XP land, go #1 and will then also become #1 value.



Thats already the case but the top players are usually always value players.



Value allows you to attack planets and defend. A planet without value is useless, we should not be encouraging players to crash there fleet when it isnt beneficial to do so and will probably ruin their round. Thats why PA is pure value play, XP is good in theory but it only becomes viable at the end of the round where the scoregain from crashing can outweight what you'd of gained otherwise.



but what do you expect to happen when people hit top players? They're going to get defence and going to be extremly hard to roid. but the roids are worthless if they arnt repaid quickly as the chance of getting roided becomes high when they make themselves fat and lose value.

XP is regarded as useless for every player until the last tick. Until then its nothing and worthless.



or we could just have a page with covert-operations, where they do their covert-operations from. Instead of creating a moon to do covert-operations.


I agree in theory with some of what you say but its almost impossible to balance properly within PA without completly changing PA and alienating the current community. Its not as simple as just making defence harder or making attacking easier.. They both have to be balanced in order to encourage alliance play and galaxy play. Its also a reason why most DC's tend to dislike ST as it becomes a nightmare to DC all the incomings where everyone needs certain ships.

Its also not easy to encourage players to hit the top planets, when you're keeping the same formula's for roid capping. As it will always be that if you cap 50-75 roids a night from noobs, you'll be a high ranking player. People naturally go for roids which they have a chance of success hitting. Alliances currently do hit big planets, but those big planets tend to get more defence, so even when alliance members teamup to hit them, they rarely land.

Hell at the end of the game, you see 20+ fleets launching on planets and still no landing. The top planets are priority defence, especially in the later game. Encouraging newbs to launch on them, is nothing but suicide.
If the player gets 50-75 roids by hitting a noob, he rather stays home when he is about to lose twice as many from his own attackers and if the roids produce more thats one more reason added to hold on to them.

you just self said the top players are about to get def, so they are pound to defthemselfs even the landing was supported by salvage or xp turned as money, no one has said it gives both score and resources.

the fleet morals step in when xp fails, its costy to hit the safe 50-75 roids. U pay for fleet moral versus some possible fleet loss, also smaller cap compared to hitting players on your range.

when there are enough couraging factors people atleast dare to check the defence abilitys of the top allies.

do you know why the attacks u described above doesnt land? because the game dont support to take ANY losses. Thats why we need attackers salvage, xp bonuses to make u consider landing and the defence and communication part instead increases, needs some thinking aswell, so they arent easy coverages, u cant send defences where u lose more than 100k ships, but knowing attacker wont land losing 20k which is EXPENSIVE TO REBUILD.

Defenders allready collect salvage, xp, cover from roid loss risk free compared to attacking, which is never a safe land. Also defenders have eta advantages... it wont remove defence, might make it more considered one perhaps.

I am looking for options to choose between landing or fleeing, now its really simple choise, if u lose enough u recall, because its impossible to rebuild. While u could example land for great amount of incs damaging your opposition.

Right now its damn costy to land, face an actual fleet and there are the challences to fix. Those are winning who avoid battle by share numbers, politics and having chances to focus on attacking with others having lack of motivators to challence them.

Please people open your damn eyes, there are no battles, we are cabable to fix this.
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
Ave is offline   Reply With Quote