Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
I agree with kaiba on this. PA is not a war game it is a strategy game, and the strategy is almost invariably as little war as possible. Even those (like ult) who are good at wars then want those wars to have as little actual combat as possible if they are to stand a chance of winning - the very quick score loss that comes with combat is ruinous to chances!
As such if you really want a war game then you don't want xp reduced, you want it increased and probably altered what it is for. Xp should be bigger (or perhaps only be gained) when actually losing ships in combat. It should be a compensator for the value loss not something gained automatically when you land on a target that is avoiding a fleet battle. The other option would be to shake up value by having it much more difficult to kill loads in a combat but we already know the community is against this as there have been stats suggested in the past which would go some way to doing this that have been rejected. The final possibility would be to move away from value having much to do with score rather than just showing how many ships someone has. Instead there would be something more like the alliance points with points gained for fought combats as well as other things.
Whichever of these three you like it would be a big shake up.
|
The stopping value being a score contributer is the way to go. The rewards for combat should not be linked to the preservation of fleet, it should be the act of combat itself. Ship loss should yield xp along with roid gain. But that requires major recoding of the game engine and stops PA being what it actually is, a strategy space game.
Unfortunately every change to the core of the game will bring up a new way of winning it via 'other means' which puts us back at square one in this debate.
People just need to accept their tactic is not the only tactic and yes occasionally overpowered tactics lead to results like this round, but that enables the PA team to tune the game to make these tactics viable but not ridiculously overpowered. Def xp will be changed to wind down the effectiveness of 3.4's tactic but it shoudnt be done to the extent that it is no longer a way to win. It should just be on a par with everything else. Reduction to 75% would probably suffice. Benneh would have still won most likely but it would have been a lot more balanced compared to value and xp attackers strategies.