Score, XP, Value

[Kal]

If we assume that XP is a reward for a good action in the game, and that value is the sum of your planets posessions; how should score be calculated?

At the moment the formula is Score=Value+60XP.

As it is not possible to loose XP, this means that sacrificing value to gain XP is a good tactic, however this also means that the best players at using this tactic will be impossible to remove by force, and can only be beaten by outdoing them at their own tactic.

So maybe a different way of calculating score is needed.

I propose something along the lines of Score=(Value*XP^2)^(1/3).

This formula still encourages actions which generate XP over actions which generate value, but crucially it does allow a planet to be taken down, however becuase this planet will still have their XP they will be able to recover rapidly. This should lead to more diverse game play with more variations in score on a day to day basic. The ^(1/3) factor is to adjust the overall score to be of a similar size to the score generated by the current formula (neccessary so the database can handle the numbers).

[Loz]

[Mistwraith]

anything that allows us to take down theese xp whores has got to be a good thing

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Kal

As it is not possible to loose XP, this means that sacrificing value to gain XP is a good tactic, however this also means that the best players at using this tactic will be impossible to remove by force, and can only be beaten by outdoing them at their own tactic.

In the end of the round value will determine who wins, not XP. Those going for XP early in the round will have little chance of winning. I'm not convinced the system is broken. Don't be too eager to exchange a working system for something new. It might be fun to test this though.

[Appocomaster]

I think the XP system needs to be changed, certainly. This would change the dynamics of the game, with people less inclined to sacrifice their fleet for asteroids, and so I'm worried might stagnate the game slightly (it'd be less rewarding to hit bigger people and take losses, even though it'd be easier to take down bigger planets).
If we don't change the XP / value / score relationship to something like this, I'd propose changing the XP system for capturing asteroids to (target_planet_value/own_planet_value - 0.5)*roids_gained*10.
This would reduce the XP gained from attacking, and if you hit planets have your size (value wise), it'd get you negative XP instead of positive XP.
I'd also like to see defence XP reduced either way, and maybe increase covert op / scan XP *slightly* (not so it's abuseable, but so it makes a bit of a difference).

[Loz]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I think the XP system needs to be changed, certainly. This would change the dynamics of the game, with people less inclined to sacrifice their fleet for asteroids, and so I'm worried might stagnate the game slightly (it'd be less rewarding to hit bigger people and take losses, even though it'd be easier to take down bigger planets).
If we don't change the XP / value / score relationship to something like this, I'd propose changing the XP system for capturing asteroids to (target_planet_value/own_planet_value - 0.5)*roids_gained*10.
This would reduce the XP gained from attacking, and if you hit planets have your size (value wise), it'd get you negative XP instead of positive XP.
I'd also like to see defence XP reduced either way, and maybe increase covert op / scan XP *slightly* (not so it's abuseable, but so it makes a bit of a difference).

so you'd lose xp for bashing? seems a little harsh

sorry if thats wnot what you meant i'm not really understandintg trhings atm.

[Bashar]

I would agree with using XP as a multiplier somehow, but I don't like that particular formula. A better option I feel would be one that multiplied the value by XP directly, but where the higher the XP, the less effect it had.

e.g. score = value*(1 + Sq_Rt(XP+5000)/100)

It's a fairly shit formula too, but it demonstrates the type of thing I would aim for. It means XP doesn't give you exponential growth, but it is still worth having, and the more XP a planet gets, the less effect more has, which stops XP whoring. It also makes it more beneficial for smaller people to attack with losses than larger people, so the bigger planets get more of a challenge, and the smaller planets get a chance to get into the game easily. The bigger you get, the more skill you need to get bigger. This to me is the sort of direction XP should take.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

In the end of the round value will determine who wins, not XP. Those going for XP early in the round will have little chance of winning. I'm not convinced the system is broken. Don't be too eager to exchange a working system for something new. It might be fun to test this though.

Well the XP can be given more influence than in the formula I stated - i for one might attack more vigourously with a multiplier effect if I was currently low in score - a gmable to get me up - once up i might play safe though - but then this might mean people overtake people higher up more quickly leading to what is in fact a mroe dynamic situation. I dislike the fact that people can be entirly suicidial.

[NitinA]

The top planets at the moment have about as much XP as the top 20 planets towards the end of round 12. The higher range of values within the universe (due to stealing) has made XP very suseptable to "cheating", IMO. [Cheating being defined as stated in EULA 18.1(c) "(c) Abusing game features in order to gain excessive XP (e.g. roid farming)"]. If anyone remembers "Evil n00b" from last round, who had about 100,000 XP by the end of the round and was frowned upon by a lot fo the community--this is basically what is happening on a much more widespread basis. As the range of values increase more rapidly throughout the universe, due to stealing, XP will become more suseptable to higher gains by landing on those very large value planets. I, personally, do not think the 20x "bravery factor" (Suicidal/Stupidity factor, IMO) is a low enough cap, as if you cap 10 roids from a planet 20 times larger than you [ 10*10*(20/1) = 2000), with 2,000 XP being close to 120,000 score for 10 roids capped, a bit absurd in my opinion.

I really do hope that the larger value players end up winning the round, as opposed to the Evil_n00b copycats (Whereas evil_n00b demonstrated last round that you can be under 100 roids, under 200k value, and end up as one of the top players in the game at round end), and this round with a wider range of values allows this to be abused more. In my opinion, XP needs to be either rethought with stealing, or it's effect on score lowerd substantially (*20 or *30 instead of *60).

-NitinA

[Kal]

this isn't neccessarily about how much XP one should get from varuous actions but more how shoudl XP be incorporated into the overall score (though of course the two are connected) - for example I would like to give fixed XP rewards for landing fleets, with an additional bonus coming from roid caps which would vary with number of roids capped.

[NotALegend]

Originally Posted by NitinA

I, personally, do not think the 20x "bravery factor" (Suicidal/Stupidity factor, IMO) is a low enough cap, as if you cap 10 roids from a planet 20 times larger than you [ 10*10*(20/1) = 2000), with 2,000 XP being close to 120,000 score for 10 roids capped, a bit absurd in my opinion.

From the manual:

XP=asteroids_capped*bravery_factor
bravey_factor=10*(target_value/your_value)
bravey factor is capped at 20

As seen, according to the manual, the bravey factor is capped at 20, not 200. So in your example above, it would be 200 XP for 10 roids capped. Not that absurd, is it?

Or, hmmm, is the manual not quite up-to-date? Now, that sounds very unlikely.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Mistwraith

anything that allows us to take down theese xp whores has got to be a good thing

Misty! You cut me to the bone.

[Ferretus]

I'm not a fan of the current system as I think Value is far more important than score, and many people are taking advantage of that.

However you work it out I have no clue, the idea of negative xp for bashing does sound good though :-) however this shouldnt force people to attack larger targets as players should be able to play the game without the need of an alliance.

As score only affects those people who care about rankings perhaps a simple average of value and score should represent the ranking table. This would be far more accurate and be a true reality of who is a threat and therefore better player out there.

[Conall]

Why not just cap the XP factor. Meaning total XP cannot be gained more than 2x of your value.
EX. if you are 750K value planet with a score of 1,200K and you attack a 1,500K value planet and capped 350 roids. That amounts to 420K XP. The value added by new roids is 21k for 771K value /1221K score(assuming no ship loss). 2x your value would be 1542K. 420K added to your score of 1271K = 1641. Since you cannot exceed twice your value in XP the your max score is 1542k then 99k of that XP you just made is not rewarded. That would prevent a player from skating to the top on low value high XP.

But any XP you are ultimately reward you keep. The only problem is if you get bashed down, loosing 350K of value and score then you have less incentive to hit much larger targets. Using the same roid take of 350 and 420K XP you would only get 21K XP in that case.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Conall

The only problem is if you get bashed down, loosing 350K of value and score then you have less incentive to hit much larger targets. Using the same roid take of 350 and 420K XP you would only get 21K XP in that case.

Alternatively, you could cap it to the max value ever attained, that way if bashed down, you could recover more quickly.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Loz

so you'd lose xp for bashing? seems a little harsh

sorry if thats wnot what you meant i'm not really understandintg trhings atm.

Yes. At the moment, XP is very much a one way thing. I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to loose XP for 'bad' things. As I've said above, I think that the whole idea of XP and what it's given for needs to be changed, not just the forumla behind it. The major problem is that while it's almost giving 'rewards' for planet actions, it is hard to make it 'playable' but not 'abusable'

Originally Posted by Bashar

I would agree with using XP as a multiplier somehow, but I don't like that particular formula. A better option I feel would be one that multiplied the value by XP directly, but where the higher the XP, the less effect it had.

e.g. score = value*(1 + Sq_Rt(XP+5000)/100)

It's a fairly shit formula too, but it demonstrates the type of thing I would aim for. It means XP doesn't give you exponential growth, but it is still worth having, and the more XP a planet gets, the less effect more has, which stops XP whoring. It also makes it more beneficial for smaller people to attack with losses than larger people, so the bigger planets get more of a challenge, and the smaller planets get a chance to get into the game easily. The bigger you get, the more skill you need to get bigger. This to me is the sort of direction XP should take.

This is actually, constants and transformations aside, sort of the inverse of Kal's suggestion.

He's woking on value*XP^2, whereas you're suggesting value*XP^(1/2) as the cross term (although you also have the value extra).

TBH, I like the idea of taking the squareroot of XP (in relation to value). It does make value have more weight near the end of the game - this will make it easier to take out some of those big nasty planets

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

TBH, I like the idea of taking the squareroot of XP (in relation to value). It does make value have more weight near the end of the game - this will make it easier to take out some of those big nasty planets

with my formula is perfectly easy to take out nasty planets - and their drop in score will be nice and big to if they have a BIG XP multiplier - the bigger they are the harder they fall.

I'm aginst negative XP, but I would like to give XP out for more things.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

As it is not possible to loose XP, this means that sacrificing value to gain XP is a good tactic, however this also means that the best players at using this tactic will be impossible to remove by force, and can only be beaten by outdoing them at their own tactic.

I don't think there's a big enough for this, but I've tried:

This forum needs [img] tags.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Kal

with my formula is perfectly easy to take out nasty planets - and their drop in score will be nice and big to if they have a BIG XP multiplier - the bigger they are the harder they fall.

I'm aginst negative XP, but I would like to give XP out for more things.

But using a square of XP instead of the squareroot, as XP grows it gets far more important. E.G.

I'm 10,000 value and have 100 XP.
My score by XP^2*value is 100,000,000.
My score by XP^(1/2)*value is 100,000.
The above numbers in themselves are not important, they can be transformed easily
If I want to keep my score or increase it, for a 10% value loss while attacking:
for the XP^2*value formula, I have to get 100,000,000 =< 1000*New_XP^2*100^2
which gives: New_XP^2 >= 10 giving sqrt(10) as the minimum XP

The other way, you have New_XP^(1/2) >= 10, giving 100 as the minimum XP.
I.E. your forumla makes it more worth while to go for XP while loosing value. Obviously this helps keep stagnation down, but it might be too similar to the old forumla to solve the problem.

[Kal]

i don;t think the strategy is a problem - it encourages attakcing instead of defence and loosing value when attaclking in roder to roid big people - which is a good thing as it makes going for easy roids pointless.

I do not want to make XP less important - I just want to make it possible to kill the people with the high XP

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

with my formula is perfectly easy to take out nasty planets - and their drop in score will be nice and big to if they have a BIG XP multiplier - the bigger they are the harder they fall.

I'm aginst negative XP, but I would like to give XP out for more things.

Mine does the same thing, except that as people gain more XP, extra XP has less and less effect. It would serve to stop planets that are online 24/7 running away with the round based purely on XP. It would quite simply mean that XP whoring gets less and less beneficial the more you do it.

[Bashar]

As an extension of my previous post - players who don't 'XP whore', but use XP as it was intended (which was not as the goal, but as an incentive to not bash people, and to reward those who play the game with a decent level of activity, but aren't in a big alliance), will have there XP mean more. People who just attack for XP (which are usually massively active big alliance players), extra XP will gradually mean less and less.

My suggestion was merely a breaking effect on XP whoring, which is something everybody seems to object to.

[Kal]

I thiojk the fact that its imposisble to kill XP-whores is what they object to - surely people shoudnt be penalise for continual accuessful attacks against bigger planets?

define a successful attack though? because atm it seems to be sacrificing 90% ships to cap a small amount of roids... that aint a 'true' succesfuls attack in my book, but an attack that has evolved for simple means of gaining xp. It aint skillfill and anyone could do it. Think about it if planetarion were real space warfare? would a succesfull space empire really win a war because they had a smaller army and sacrificied it all to claim victory? I think not

[Rinoa]

define a successful attack though? because atm it seems to be sacrificing 90% ships to cap a small amount of roids... that aint a 'true' succesfuls attack in my book, but an attack that has evolved for simple means of gaining xp. It aint skillfill and anyone could do it. Think about it if planetarion were real space warfare? would a succesfull space empire really win a war because they had a smaller army and sacrificied it all to claim victory? I think not


oops managed to post without logging in....see above ^^

[Bashar]

When you are new to the game, and at the start of the round, that level of sacrifice is to be expected. My formula means though that, as you go on, you have to sacrifice less and less for the roids. Also Kal - your method of killing XP whores doesn't do that much as yes, you can kill them, but theyc an grow back at a rate far greater than other planets. My formula means they can grow back faster, but there not as fast as with yours. It also stops people from gaining much success from XP whoring in the first place. It is still beneficial to attack for XP, but it can't be used any longer as the lone tactic.

[Vapula]

Well... Basically, I would say that the new XP system should

- penalize suicide
- avoid XP-Whores
- still give a benefit into attacking big planets...

here is my proposal :
1) XP = f1(roidcap, targetvalue/ownvalue, losses/fleetsize, losses/deflosses,structkilled)

Attacking better targets, capping roids and killing structures should be revwarded. But inflicting big fleet losses to enemy is also to be rewarded.while losing too much should be frowned upon

2) score
I think that a function like LN(XP) or SQRT(XP) is good as it reflect the fact that the more exp you've, the more difficult it is to get something from it... You see the same thing in Role Playing Games where you need more and more exp to level up...

value + k*SQRT(XP)
value*k*SQRT(XP)
value*(1+k*SQRT(XP))

3) XP-losses
I'd say that if you lose your whole fleet in an attack, you may have XP losses. This would prevent people from suiciding on Zikonian targets to get more XP.

4) Scans/Covert/Defence
Some exp could be ginve to successful scans...
Given the difficulty to get through with the new covert op system (immunity is way too easy and cheap to get), successful Covert should be given more reward in XP.
Defending some planet could be given some XP related to the attackerlosses/defenderlosses or something similar...

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Rinoa

define a successful attack though? because atm it seems to be sacrificing 90% ships to cap a small amount of roids... that aint a 'true' succesfuls attack in my book, but an attack that has evolved for simple means of gaining xp. It aint skillfill and anyone could do it. Think about it if planetarion were real space warfare? would a succesfull space empire really win a war because they had a smaller army and sacrificied it all to claim victory? I think not


oops managed to post without logging in....see above ^^

then maybe the value part of the XP from combat formula needs less signifcance compared to the roid cap part?

the point is it is worth sacrificing some value in order to get roids as roids give long term score growth.

Perhaps you should get 1 XP per tick for every roid you possess or somehting to discourage people from being willing to loose roids.

[Vapula]

Originally Posted by Kal

Perhaps you should get 1 XP per tick for every roid you possess or somehting to discourage people from being willing to loose roids.

This would probably give an unfair advantage to the biggest planets... They are already able to build more ships than other due to greater revenues...

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Kal

then maybe the value part of the XP from combat formula needs less signifcance compared to the roid cap part?

the point is it is worth sacrificing some value in order to get roids as roids give long term score growth.

Only if you can keep them long enough. That's the major difference between roids and XP: roids are a long-term investment whereas XP are just a quick slash-and-burn cash crop.

Perhaps you should get 1 XP per tick for every roid you possess or somehting to discourage people from being willing to loose roids.

I think that would pretty much be an admission that XP are too heavily weighted in the scoring formula.

[Kal]

what if u simply get something like this:

fixed XP for attack and defence - but value weighted - e.g. attack XP = 200*targetvalue/yourfleetvalue and defence xp = 200*(totalattacker value / (total defence value*numberofdefenders))

The attack XP formala encoruages attacking big planets, and the defence XP formula encourages efficient defence.

The ratios would of course need capping

simple...

use the same formula as current by divide it by the Value of the ships you lose. this will be practical in larger and smaller attacks as it is a division. example:

You attack someone double your size and cap 100 roids. currently it is 20*100 = 2000 xp. But say you did a suicidal attack and lost 500 ships worth a value of 100,000. make it something like 2000 / (.0001 * 100,000) ... or some variation

the variation should make attacks that cap roids "successfully" by not losing any ships due to good planning give more xp then suicidal roiding trips where you lose a lot of ships and cap same amount of roids and get barely any xp. this makes the only true way to gain a lot of xp from an attack is to cap roids with minimal loses, which is truly what someone should be rewarded for.

anyone see a problem to factoring your loses in your attack into its success rated in XP?

Quick note...

with the change in how you gain XP in the first place XP should not be able to be lost as it should remain with you the whole round as an indicator of how successfulyou have been throughout the round. that is its point. this will simply cut off the suicidal attack cheat whereby people gain massive xp this way. if you land true successful attacks then you get xp and viola

xp is yours to show how many successful attacks. capping 300 roids is better than 100 roids so roid capping should definitely definitely be in the formula. attacking bigger targets is definitely involving better use of ships and so forth. limiting your attacks to those above 40% your value prevents someone too big from smashing someone too small. but if you cap 300 roids on a suicide mission you gain little xp which is very small where as my landing a successful attack with less roids may be more rewarding...

now the discussion should be What Number Do We Use To Divide Value Loss? How to make the exact forumla... unless people disagree with this?

About negative XP...

You could maybe think about losing xp when you lose roids to not make it worth it to lose roids then go suiciding again although I am somewhat opposed to negative xp. maybe you could lose xp when you lose structures making you abl eto send structure killers to take down the xp whores. but if you make xp whoring harder to impossible by having fleet loss calculated in then maybe this wont be a problem. Maybe the bad things in a game could penalize the persons score maybe even have a different variable like NP and when you get owned you get NP which will be very minor maybe like 1/4 the XP but will be calculated into the score. So if you hve a season of getting owned at the end these bad things like losing tons of roids will be factored in.

i dunno...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

Perhaps you should get 1 XP per tick for every roid you possess or somehting to discourage people from being willing to loose roids.

What?!

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Banned

What?!

try to kepe up with current ideas.. that one went many posts ago

[Flying Monkey]

All of the zik planets in the top 10 have about more than twice the value of the non zik planets because they gain so much from capping ships. People are xp hoarding to keep up with the scores of the huge zik planets. I havn't seen one non zik planet that can match the value of some of the top zik planets yet. I was never intending to go for xp this round but I find myself doing so as I can't keep my roids long enough in order to build many ships. Zik don't have this problem so much as they can just steal ships and so therefore its possible for them to also get score and value from defending if they managed to steal a lot of ships.

If no one xp hoarded, the top 10 would probably be just ziks. In my opinion something needs to be done about this if the xp formula is going to be changed.

Even though I'm doing it myself, I agree it should be changed though.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

try to kepe up with current ideas.. that one went many posts ago

I'm just confused as to how you could even think that 'encouraging people to keep on to their roids' would be a good thing :\

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Kal

what if u simply get something like this:

fixed XP for attack and defence - but value weighted - e.g. attack XP = 200*targetvalue/yourfleetvalue and defence xp = 200*(totalattacker value / (total defence value*numberofdefenders))

The attack XP formala encoruages attacking big planets, and the defence XP formula encourages efficient defence.

The ratios would of course need capping

This seems like an extremly good suggestion Kal.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Kargool

This seems like an extremly good suggestion Kal.

the attack xp formula is far from perfect - ideally i think i'd like to reward solo attacking -= maybe this could be done by syaing something like - I

IF (roids_gained > 0.10*total_target_roids)
{
XP = 200 * target_value / your_fleet_value
}

similarly the defence XP could be calculated based on defence success

XP = 100 * (total_attackers_ value / total_defence_value)*(defence_roids*0.25/roids_lost)*

this way succesful attacks are rewarded while piggybacking/escoprting is punnished and succesful defence is rewarded.

[Makhil]

would be interesting to test these options on the current top50...

[~RevictioN~]

If score was based more upon value not exp Zik's would have top 100 , not that by round end zik's wont have top 100 anyways

[x-dANGEr]

Well! I have a suggestion that might remove this spot which everone is taking advantage of(espieicially Terrans and Cathaars), What about making some formula that if you lose more than half of your fleet's value, you lose XP instead of gaining it, what do you think?

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Kal

XP = 100 * (total_attackers_ value / total_defence_value)*(defence_roids*0.25/roids_lost)*.

Wouldn't this encourage fleet running, almost as a way of 'punishing' the attacker?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by sniborp

Wouldn't this encourage fleet running, almost as a way of 'punishing' the attacker?

that was XP for defence though...

[Cannon_Fodder]

And theres no cap to it?

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Kal

what if u simply get something like this:

fixed XP for attack and defence - but value weighted - e.g. attack XP = 200*targetvalue/yourfleetvalue and defence xp = 200*(totalattacker value / (total defence value*numberofdefenders))

The attack XP formala encoruages attacking big planets, and the defence XP formula encourages efficient defence.

The ratios would of course need capping

Hugely abusable. Ridiciously abusable.
I send 1 ship to 3 planets at my 40% limit, and get huge XP boosts. I don't even have to send pods!
same for defence, everyone sends as many fleets as possible to give huge XP boosts. there'd be planets with no fleet or little fleet and there'd just be mass attack/defences on them for XP.
I think you noticed this though, because of:

Originally Posted by Kal

the attack xp formula is far from perfect - ideally i think i'd like to reward solo attacking -= maybe this could be done by saying something like -
IF (roids_gained > 0.10*total_target_roids)
{
XP = 200 * target_value / your_fleet_value
}

similarly the defence XP could be calculated based on defence success

XP = 100 * (total_attackers_ value / total_defence_value)*(defence_roids*0.25/roids_lost)*

this way succesful attacks are rewarded while piggybacking/escoprting is punnished and succesful defence is rewarded.

But, it's still abusable.
Attackwise:
I find someone at 40% of my value, i send enough pods for full cap and as little other fleet as possible. I get full XP bonus because I cap over 10% of the roids. I assume the target_value is the planet value not the defence fleet value, otherwise the defender runs fleet and kills the attacker's XP gain...

Defence wise:
easily possible to do XP donations, especially with cathaar defenders.
attacker sends 10 pods, cathaar player defends with ships that don't kill the pods. most efficient defence (assuming 0 other ships are defending / attacking), full XP is gained, and 0 roids are lost. If some top 10 player runs his fleets, a player ranked 2000th sends his ships to defend, and someone attacks with a few pods that are doomed to fail, HUGE HUGE HUGE XP donations.

Originally Posted by Ali

simple...

use the same formula as current by divide it by the Value of the ships you lose. this will be practical in larger and smaller attacks as it is a division. example:

You attack someone double your size and cap 100 roids. currently it is 20*100 = 2000 xp. But say you did a suicidal attack and lost 500 ships worth a value of 100,000. make it something like 2000 / (.0001 * 100,000) ... or some variation

An interesting idea, especially it's done by lost ships as opposed to change in value (so zik's stolen ships have no effect). This would keep XP as a lower percentage in the universe, and mean the forumla has to change less.

[quote=Ali]About negative XP...

You could maybe think about losing xp when you lose roids to not make it worth it to lose roids then go suiciding again although I am somewhat opposed to negative xp. maybe you could lose xp when you lose structures making you abl eto send structure killers to take down the xp whores. but if you make xp whoring harder to impossible by having fleet loss calculated in then maybe this wont be a problem. QUOTE]
Again, another idea that'd definately slow the XP whores, as they generally work off roid exchange.

Originally Posted by Flying Monkey

All of the zik planets in the top 10 have about more than twice the value of the non zik planets because they gain so much from capping ships.
....
If no one xp hoarded, the top 10 would probably be just ziks. In my opinion something needs to be done about this if the xp formula is going to be changed.

I totally agree. I think that if Zik are unchanged (though i'd love to see a 10% 'malfunction' rate on zik ships as mentioned in the http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=184841 thread) the other races need some advantage that keeps their value at a similar level, whether this means further nerfing Zik ships (especially their damage) or something else i don't know.

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Well! I have a suggestion that might remove this spot which everone is taking advantage of(espieicially Terrans and Cathaars), What about making some formula that if you lose more than half of your fleet's value, you lose XP instead of gaining it, what do you think?

XP relating to fleet % lost?
so XP= whateveritisalready*2* ((origional_value - value_of_ships_lost)/origional_value - 0.5) ? or whatever? (I used value_of_ships_lost to make sure Zik didn't get extra XP bonuses ).
This would be a major disadvantage for the Terran race, who rely on loosing ships and the fact their armour is big enough to make it through to roid capping, while giving xan perhaps more of an XP advantage as they're more kill 'em all and get through safely .

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Ali

simple...

use the same formula as current by divide it by the Value of the ships you lose. this will be practical in larger and smaller attacks as it is a division. example:

You attack someone double your size and cap 100 roids. currently it is 20*100 = 2000 xp. But say you did a suicidal attack and lost 500 ships worth a value of 100,000. make it something like 2000 / (.0001 * 100,000) ... or some variation

the variation should make attacks that cap roids "successfully" by not losing any ships due to good planning give more xp then suicidal roiding trips where you lose a lot of ships and cap same amount of roids and get barely any xp. this makes the only true way to gain a lot of xp from an attack is to cap roids with minimal loses, which is truly what someone should be rewarded for.

anyone see a problem to factoring your loses in your attack into its success rated in XP?

perfect. lower exp based on lost ships

[at0mic.c0w]

if you want to discourage suiciding then - as suggested before - lost ships/value have to be accounted for... maybe as a proportion of the attacking fleet minus some expected losses of a few percent (dependent on race - e.g. lower expected losses for cath)

[WesseH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loz
so you'd lose xp for bashing? seems a little harsh

sorry if thats wnot what you meant i'm not really understandintg trhings atm.

^^well.. one might argue 'a bad experience is still an experience, wether or not it is generally 'accepted' by the environment it occurs in'

having said that, i, like others, very much dislike the entire XP setup. getting score for attacking should come from gains solely.. now.. because simply posting these 2 lines would not help any on the topic..

here is what i would propose...

make XP into EXP -> EXPerience. for every action u take in the game that involves ANY interaction with other players (initiating asteroids/construction/research/production should not be taken into account) u gain a CERTAIN amount of EXP this EXP should then by the players themselves be distributed to certain aspects of their planet/gameplay and the EXP given to these aspects would SLOWLY increase their SKILL on these fronts.. it would kinda be an addition, or replacement, of the current engineers.

For Example: u've made 200 scans, attacked 3 planets exactly twice ur size succesfully and sent 25 intergalactic msg's (ingal communication is simply to essential to be rewarded any further) this would then accumulate to say.. 200+25+150(3x 50, mind u.. EXAMPLE) = 375 EXP points

then say improving ur research speed would cost u 500 EXP points in this branch to improve research 1 20th (3 ticks on a 60 hour research) or 1 tick on 10hrs construction/production time

this way the skilled players can still aquire immense advantage from their activity and their successes, but these 2 factors dont prevent them in any way from being blown down to >100k score (value would become score again, like it was in the past) but with the advantages they have gained from the EXP rewards and their choice of distribution of it they will be able to recover relatively quickly from being wiped out as such (ofcourse EXP should also be made possible to invest in resource generation thus creating extra income bonus)

in this setup any 'sacrificing value(is score) for EXP points could only benefit those who r EXPECTING with a certain amount of certainity to be wiped out.. but then i'd ask u... who here plays to win, expecting to get whacked ? anyone? :-P

ofcourse it should be carefully thought out how much exp is rewarded for various actions, how much exp is required for every possible 'improvement' to your planet and on a number of possible EXP-rewarding actions there may be a cap or anti-abuse-rule needed to prevent 'cheating' (the sending of msg's could for example be capped to 10 msg's a day... any active player will send these msg's then, but the reward for sending a msg could be made so low it doesnt make so much difference compared to those players who simply lack the time to send msg's.. for scan-EXP-rewards it could be made so that only scans u (or your alliance) visibly does something with r rewarded, which would mean scan-EXP is extended once a day at a set time (coz there is always time between making the scan and doing something with it) and likewise more rules may need to be thought up to prevent abuse... but well.. evaluate the general idea first.. specifics r of later concern :-P