[Declined] Smaller % of roids taken per tick

[Chika]

Title says it all. I took this on the basis that last round, most of the top 100 had under 2000 roids. 68% (almost accurate) of the top 100 roids were in the top 20. Thats pretty unbalanced. Plus, the roid limit is 8000. many in top 15 had over 8000. Less % per tick will make organization a big factor in taking out big planets, and also, gives smaller planets a better chance of rebuilding. If someone has 400 roids, I don't need 100 of them. More like his 400, my take 50.

[demiGOD]

better retals too because of lesser losses, therefore more battles and more effort for better organizations of attacks and retals of alliances - lesser than 25% max cap means battles become more personal and stagnation will be a thing of the past

-i agree

[Orion Treet]

Hmm, has its ups and it's downs, but don't think it will change game that much.

[noah02]

Sorry I just dont understand.

[Tis]

you'd be doubling cost/roid and payback time, making it much harder to find profitable attacks.... unless you want to go completely redo the stats.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tis

you'd be doubling cost/roid and payback time, making it much harder to find profitable attacks.... unless you want to go completely redo the stats.

Just double armor across the board...

[Chika]

[quote=Tis]you'd be doubling cost/roid and payback time, making it much harder to find profitable attacks.... unless you want to go completely redo the stats.[/QUOTE

They are re-doing the stats. They said forget attacking as we know it.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Chika

They are re-doing the stats. They said forget attacking as we know it.

Who said that?

[noah02]

forget attacking as we know it?
I dont remember reading something like that but i remember reading something new etc... reference ziks stealing hmmm changing everything sounds scary.

[Orion Treet]

It will just bring down the scale of things I think. Less roids means less money means smaller fleets so I don't see what large a dif it would make.

[Appocomaster]

Cutting the cap limit would have several affects. As has been said, it'll increase the cost per roid, making most attacks less profitable. It'd also slightly stagnate the game, but the big players would probably not get so far ahead, and be easier to take out by the "smaller" players (especially if prelaunched fleets get involved in combat). People might well initiate for slightly longer, although it's always been a bone of contention as to how long to initiate .
tbh next round i don't think attacks will be *totally* different. I don't think halving cap rates and doubling armour would work, it'd just be silly :/ Terrans would end up with like, 10000 armour and 30 damage .
Dropping cap rates by 5% might be enough, I don't think dropping them to 10% or something would work. Alternatively, you could always drop the damage done by pods.

[Marv]

I would think that this is good but only a drop to 15% would be a good idea.

Mostly for reasons that Appoc just gave.

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Chika

Title says it all. I took this on the basis that last round, most of the top 100 had under 2000 roids. 68% (almost accurate) of the top 100 roids were in the top 20. Thats pretty unbalanced. Plus, the roid limit is 8000. many in top 15 had over 8000. Less % per tick will make organization a big factor in taking out big planets, and also, gives smaller planets a better chance of rebuilding. If someone has 400 roids, I don't need 100 of them. More like his 400, my take 50.

Its unbalanced because they play it better and get better defence.. and the bigger they get the better their defence becomes.. You could slow this down by stagnating the round a bit as u suggest.. so that they dont grow that fast.. but you forget that everybody has that cap limit, so ur still not able to keep up with them bcz u grow slowly urself.. it doesnt matter if the caplimit is 25% or 12% in this case. they grow on full speed.. on increasingly bigger targets.. and you dont

You can't take out big planets if u can't LAND on them.. I dont see how u can take out big planets easier if u get less roids from them.. because its ussually already impossible to land on certain planets.. even if their not big.. so if u manage to land once then they only lose less

and how on earth can small planets rebuild faster if they get less roids.. when they already have badluck with attacks.. I think small planets will bash nubjes with holes in their def more often roids just to keep up

Originally Posted by demiGOD

better retals too because of lesser losses, therefore more battles and more effort for better organizations of attacks and retals of alliances - lesser than 25% max cap means battles become more personal and stagnation will be a thing of the past

-i agree

Battles are already personal.. but if I can get only a few % roids then I only take teh sexiest targets and just stop retalling.. and bash the few nice targets..

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Cutting the cap limit would have several affects. As has been said, it'll increase the cost per roid, making most attacks less profitable. It'd also slightly stagnate the game, but the big players would probably not get so far ahead, and be easier to take out by the "smaller" players (especially if prelaunched fleets get involved in combat). People might well initiate for slightly longer, although it's always been a bone of contention as to how long to initiate .
tbh next round i don't think attacks will be *totally* different. I don't think halving cap rates and doubling armour would work, it'd just be silly :/ Terrans would end up with like, 10000 armour and 30 damage .
Dropping cap rates by 5% might be enough, I don't think dropping them to 10% or something would work. Alternatively, you could always drop the damage done by pods.

Lets c.. less profiteble attacks.. Yay

Slightly stagnate the game.. yay

Big players would properbly get far ahead.. ?? and easier to take down by smaller planets?? you question our skills?? we lose less roids from small planets.. yayy if an attack gets trough they wont even do to much damage yayyy...

People might initaite longer.. Yay longer no attacks

More armor? ur right that idea is crap.. Yay

Dropping cap rates 5% errr would that make such a big difference:/?

Drop the damage by pods..?? yay we have to build more pods and less shooting ships

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Alessio

Its unbalanced because they play it better and get better defence.. and the bigger they get the better their defence becomes.. You could slow this down by stagnating the round a bit as u suggest.. so that they dont grow that fast.. but you forget that everybody has that cap limit, so ur still not able to keep up with them bcz u grow slowly urself.. it doesnt matter if the caplimit is 25% or 12% in this case. they grow on full speed.. on increasingly bigger targets.. and you dont

It matters. If the number 1 has 4% roid growth while the #2 has 1% roid growth the round will not be over as fast as when the #1 grows by 8% and the #2 by 2%.

...
and how on earth can small planets rebuild faster if they get less roids.. when they already have badluck with attacks.. I think small planets will bash nubjes with holes in their def more often roids just to keep up

They can rebuild faster because they lose less roids.

[Kal]

declined - high roid cap is good.