R21 Stats Comments

[Monroe]

I would like to hear some constructive feedback from the community about the r21 stats. Looking at the t100 for this round so far it seems that 4 of the 5 races are pretty well balanced. Clearly terrans have some serious problems that are going to have to be looked at for next round. But other then that it seems that overall things are reasonably well balanced. So I would like some feedback from the community on what they have seen so far. I would also be curious to get the communities feeling on the drastic increase in the number of ships in the game and the decrease in the cost of roids. Please no flames or two word 'they suck' responses, constructive critisism is always appreciated.

[Kargool]

I think the main issue this round has been as you point out the terrans. Not only do the terran suffer from that most new people automatically picks them but this round they have been terrible for the few pros that have a tendency to go terran. Me personally pm'ed everbody in my alliance and told them not to play terran as they indeed were as lacking as they were. Seing as most new people pick the default race, maybe it should be changed to xan or cath.

Caths this round seem to have pretty much control in regards to their CR fleet, perhaps even the Scarab is slightly too powerful in regards of the ships that defends agaisnt CR.

Xan suffer slightly under the very weak FI fleet they got, they get easily outemped, one thing that i feel this round stats have done with Xan is to go away from their initiative advantage wich i feel is unfortunate. Their Frigate fleet make up for most of it though. Very strong attackfleet.

Zik's this round are very strong. Their ability to quickly gain both co and fi fleet makes the masters of faking and most people will seriously have problems finding the right attack combo with a zik attacks. I feel that it is to strong, and that either their co stealers or their fi stealers initiative should be raised slightly. But cudos on the low steal initiative, it was a nice twist, but maybe abit too twisted.

Eitrades have also a very good fake option this round. They seem to be fairly average. Might be that their BS emping DE is too powerful.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Eitrades have also a very good fake option this round. They seem to be fairly average. Might be that their BS emping DE is too powerful.

Broker Battleship Destroyer - - - -
Drake Ter 96% EMP, average value
Pegasus Ter 122% EMP, average value
Demeter Ter 110% EMP, average value
Ghost Xan 117% EMP, average value
Spectre Xan 130% EMP, average value
Haunt Xan 276% EMP, average value
Buccaneer Zik 99% EMP, average value
Pirate Zik 95% EMP, average value
Ironclad Zik 93% EMP, average value

lol

(compared to:
Spider Fighter Destroyer - - - -
Drake Ter 112% EMP, average value
Pegasus Ter 143% EMP, average value
Demeter Ter 129% EMP, average value
Ghost Xan 137% EMP, average value
Spectre Xan 152% EMP, average value
Haunt Xan 322% EMP, average value
Buccaneer Zik 116% EMP, average value
Pirate Zik 111% EMP, average value
Ironclad Zik 109% EMP, average value)

[Bane]

The broker being too powerful just seems that way because most of an etd bs attack fleet is brokers while when zik build pirates they usually don't build enough. Yesterday a broker fleet got through but tbh I should have been able to build enough pirates to take them down but spent it a little earlier on something dumb.

[isildurx]

I think Ziks are a bit too weak vs FR incs, atleast from my experience.

Terrans are as everyone said preround, FUBAR.

[Bane]

Agreed ^^ but I figured zik fr weakness was just so they had an overwhelming weakness in one area.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by isildurx

I think Ziks are a bit too weak vs FR incs, atleast from my experience.

Terrans are as everyone said preround, FUBAR.

Most active ziks manage quite quickly to steal good anti fr though.

[Tietäjä]

Top 100.

Zero terrans.

Enough said.

[Rinoa]

The stats are going great for the 4 races bar Terran as stated previous.

All 4 have a great late round fleet imho

Xan Frg ( Can hit most except etr with tycoons)

Cath cr ( can take most if u get enough numbers - lo the 1 guy who hit me with close to 20k today :crymeariver: )

Zik de ( pain in the ass for etr and cath if u have enough and steals nice def ships)
Zik Bs (once u have stolen enough with de fleet ofc )

Etr bs ( mass brokers and take ziks/zans - works especially well if u have managed to steal a few k terran bs somewhere down the line)


One annoying combo i keep seeing is caths sending Scorpions alon with their cr fleet - can really give defenders a shock

[Gary]

I agree, Terran is hard work. But I'm still glad I chose them. I actually feel that terran de/bs fleets are up there with the better attack fleets this round, but obviously the bad side of things is thst I and other Terrans can be just about roided by everything (except de).

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by GJN

I agree, Terran is hard work. But I'm still glad I chose them. I actually feel that terran de/bs fleets are up there with the better attack fleets this round, but obviously the bad side of things is thst I and other Terrans can be just about roided by everything (except de).

I think this hits the nail on the head with terrans. I don't think they are that out of whack, but because it is a value round their overall inability to keep roids have kept their fleets small and therefor out of the t100. I think if this was an XP round there would be a significant number of terrans in the t100. This isn't to excuse the how poorly terrans are doing, but I think points to how they can be fixed moving forward... making them a bit harder to roid would go a long way to balancing them out.

Overall good comments, futher feedback as the round progresses is appreciated.

[Benneh]

Originally Posted by jerome

stuff about ships

lol, comparing a ship in an attack fleet to one of the most wanky cath ships around is awesome.

spiders ****ing blow.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Monroe

I think if this was an XP round there would be a significant number of terrans in the t100. This isn't to excuse the how poorly terrans are doing, but I think points to how they can be fixed moving forward... making them a bit harder to roid would go a long way to balancing them out..

But this is a value round. It was well known that another fiasco like last round would not be allowed to happen a second time in the run. They should have been worked into "harder to roid" during betatesting, but some people's suggestions on tweaking them that way were met with "That'd break my all races can roid all races" -scheme by the ship stats maker. It's also pretty poor to say how they could be fixed, as it was already pointed out during the private betatesting, and promptly ignored. I'd expect the harpy was widely discussed too. (in regards to thief).

[-Blue Moon-]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

some people's suggestions on tweaking them that way were met with "That'd break my all races can roid all races" -scheme by the ship stats maker. It's also pretty poor to say how they could be fixed, as it was already pointed out during the private betatesting, and promptly ignored. I'd expect the harpy was widely discussed too. (in regards to thief).

Yes true and true. I made my suggestions but I've become outspoken in the community anyway and don't expect that to change. As a whole I'm really enjoying playing as an 'inactive' Zik, all 5k of my XP has come from ingal and alliance defense and it's been great fun working with my galm8s (obviously they love me and my bucs/thief).

I cant say much for other races as I'm not too involved/active but i do like Zik. The interchangeability etc of the FR/DE fleets is great for faking, and despite being orginally against the apc/dpc times 10 thing in stats I think it has made ships more expendable and thusly has made combat more fun. Also the great thing about zik is their ability to pickup the fi/co fleets, which can really scare attackers (as you can do annoying things like 'hide' 2k thief in an expendable 10k cutlass... if you're evil and dont give a crap about the cheap cheap cutlass - like me lol)

good job monroe. you know where i am if you need me :-)
- tux

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

But this is a value round. It was well known that another fiasco like last round would not be allowed to happen a second time in the run. They should have been worked into "harder to roid" during betatesting, but some people's suggestions on tweaking them that way were met with "That'd break my all races can roid all races" -scheme by the ship stats maker. It's also pretty poor to say how they could be fixed, as it was already pointed out during the private betatesting, and promptly ignored. I'd expect the harpy was widely discussed too. (in regards to thief).

Well hindsite is 20/20, and so what you claim as certain now wasn't certain durring the beta, and while the tweaks of terrans that were suggested might have helped, they might have unbalanced the other four races as well, but no way of knowing at this point so I'm willing to let the point die.

Anyway back on point it is a very fine balance to tweak things, part of the reason the other 4 races have been so balanced is that the shortage of harpies in the game has really made FR attacks much more effective then was origionally intended. Xan FR attacks are extremely nasty without large numbers of harpies to stop them cold. But as Tux rightly points out it has made ziks very interesting in a positive way.

[Shyne]

Stats are better this round than last !

Terrans are too weak.

Reuse these stats with some tweaking next round !

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Monroe

Well hindsite is 20/20, and so what you claim as certain now wasn't certain durring the beta.

I would like to emphasis that that's your personal opinion. There were people who were very certain during the beta that terrans will be feeble. You can cringe all you want about hindsight, but it was pretty given that terran will be shit. And it was spoken of, spoken of over and over again, until some group of SubH DCs or equals started a flamebait to support the stats, after which it was "not certain during the beta" and "collectively agreed that it's cool and okay".

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

I would like to emphasis that that's your personal opinion. There were people who were very certain during the beta that terrans will be feeble. You can cringe all you want about hindsight, but it was pretty given that terran will be shit. And it was spoken of, spoken of over and over again, until some group of SubH DCs or equals started a flamebait to support the stats, after which it was "not certain during the beta" and "collectively agreed that it's cool and okay".

Whilst i wasnt around in the last beta due to uni and work commitments, from my experience of other betas, there is such a huge variety of opinion on the stats that its almost certain that someone will be correct if nothing else than sheer probability. It is extremely difficult to predict who will be 'correct' with their foretelling of how strong races will be, as it is contingent on all the other races and associated combos and etc.

Obviously, that doesnt negate the points being raised, i'm just trying to highlight that its unlikely to be "clear" that there is an issue with any particular race.

Tbh, in a more or less unrelated comment, i thought that Cathaar was going to be alot worse than they seem to be doing - though i suppose being able to farm every Xan in the universe for free kinda helps them a little .

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Whilst i wasnt around in the last beta due to uni and work commitments, from my experience of other betas, there is such a huge variety of opinion on the stats that its almost certain that someone will be correct if nothing else than sheer probability. It is extremely difficult to predict who will be 'correct' with their foretelling of how strong races will be, as it is contingent on all the other races and associated combos and etc.

It is, though, very easy to say what kind of people shouldn't be a part of the betatesting team at the first place, according to their comments. If their main point of interest is "winning the beta", or "how good does the race I picked mash others in private beta", or "how well my fleet's doing in beta", you're on wrong tracks. Instead of listening to random people, you might want to put more emphasis on the opinions of people who have a) ranked high several times in the game, b) are known to be experienced players, and c) have experience with these sorts of things.

The bullshit about sheer probability is absolutely trash. It was well known that stopping the terran battleships won't be easy (I know, Orbit has a few vicious terran BS fleets), but on the other hand it was already well known that terrans, with magnificent ships such as the chimera, will be farmed by any race. Given that some idiot disagreed, you might have wanted to pay attention to some other people (and I'm not refering to myself).

[Kargool]

Add to the fact that most alliances went to their members advicing them against playing terran the quantity of terrans in the universe became significally lower than usual, thus weakening the race too.

There were alot of reasons not to go terran this round, one of my biggest problems with it was its lack of any useful deffleets bar the Harpy. An alliance cant really use terrans for anything than attacks this round.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Kargool

There were alot of reasons not to go terran this round, one of my biggest problems with it was its lack of any useful deffleets bar the Harpy. An alliance cant really use terrans for anything than attacks this round.

The harpy, the bliss and sorrow. Gets hit by the thief (a steal ship, this is one of the most witty twists in the stats) at 531-561 (initiative win, huge gunpower, decent armor), and whatever might be left might fire (at 472), but isn't going to make too many holes.

[Kargool]

but it helps against xan fr.

[Ultimate Newbie]

[quote=Tietäjä]It is, though, very easy to say what kind of people shouldn't be a part of the betatesting team at the first place, according to their comments. If their main point of interest is "winning the beta", or "how good does the race I picked mash others in private beta", or "how well my fleet's doing in beta", you're on wrong tracks. [quote]

Obviously, i agree with this in principle, and i've espoused views on this in other areas at other times. I never brought such a suggestion - listening to idiots - up, you did.

Instead of listening to random people, you might want to put more emphasis on the opinions of people who have a) ranked high several times in the game, b) are known to be experienced players, and c) have experience with these sorts of things.

Just people people are random, doesnt detract from what they are saying. I tend to view things based on the merits of their arguments, rather than "omg, how 1337 am i, i 'won' planetarion leik 13 out of the last 15 rounds!!111one!!". We both know enough to realise that i clearly wasnt arguing this. Whilst i dont know the details regarding this round's beta, just because an experienced player says something doesnt make it right. Nor, does it make it wrong. Different people have different opinions and expectations on what is going to be important and what isnt - some of whom will be right and others wont be.

The bullshit about sheer probability is absolutely trash. It was well known that stopping the terran battleships won't be easy (I know, Orbit has a few vicious terran BS fleets), but on the other hand it was already well known that terrans, with magnificent ships such as the chimera, will be farmed by any race. Given that some idiot disagreed, you might have wanted to pay attention to some other people (and I'm not refering to myself).

Your hostile tone aside, i'm sure that you can see what i actually meant rather than building up then tearing down another strawman. My point was that it is rare that it is absolutely clear whether a race is on the whole too strong or too weak just by looking at the stats, and generally people's opinion on the issue differs. Terrans are under powered this round, that's true, and some people would have picked that. However, it wouldnt have taken much for them to have been quite overpowered, as i'm sure you can draw upon your experience and imagine.


Also, please recall that Strategy is a happy and friendly place when posting.

[Mzyxptlk]

I totally agree. It is really important whether or not we could have seen this coming in advance. In fact, it is so much more important that we should not discuss changes and tweaks at all, but instead should continue pointing the finger at each other whilst screaming bloody murder.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

I totally agree. It is really important whether or not we could have seen this coming in advance. In fact, it is so much more important that we should not discuss changes and tweaks at all, but instead should continue pointing the finger at each other whilst screaming bloody murder.

A very valid point. Why discuss changes and tweaks at all, as it has never happened that a set of statistics from a previous round was refined with the given experiences for a coming round. Even if this was suggested several times, too.

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

"omg, how 1337 am i, i 'won' planetarion leik 13 out of the last 15 rounds!!111one!!".

"OMG HOW GOOD I DO IN BETA LOLOLOLOLLOOOLOOLO I WON LOLOLO STATS ARE GOOD GAGAAHGAHAH!!!oeneoenbe+?"

Is that what you ment?

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

A very valid point. Why discuss changes and tweaks at all, as it has never happened that a set of statistics from a previous round was refined with the given experiences for a coming round. Even if this was suggested several times, too.

I'd be happy to base next round's stats on these ones.

Is that what you ment?

It seems you have more experience being "leet" than i do. Yes, clearly that is what i meant .

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

I'd be happy to base next round's stats on these ones.

There are several sets of statistics a lot of people would have been happy to base this round's statistics on.

[Monroe]

While I really feel this is a topic for another thread, I am personally against just 'tweaking' an existing set of stats. For me much of what distinguishes one round from another is the variance in stats (for better or worse) and I feel strongly that the game would be significantly less interesting if stats were just 'tweaked' between rounds. I'm much more in favor of rebuilding the stats every round using a consistent, proven, set of principles. I think this round has shown that the principles I used to create the stats are in fact a good set of principles and can in theory lead to balanced stats.

You also have to keep in mind that before last round I had never even considered making stats, which turned out to be an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. I wasn't tied to 'tradition' (much) and so I could be creative, but on the other hand my ships weren’t particularly balanced. Fortunately I had some great advice from Jer and Tux (thanks guys) to help balance things out. This really points the way forward for next round, and if I do stats again, I think that a collaboration based on the principles I have come up with can produce a good set of stats. What I am really looking for in this thread are mistakes that were made, not finger pointing or I told you so’s, neither of which are productive for producing better stats. So if we can please stop arguing in circles and get back to pointing out strengths and deficiencies in the stats I would appreciate it.

[Monroe]

Here are a couple of goals of the stats that I would like you guys to evaluate:
1. One goal was to try and force people to spread out their resources across ship classes so that it would be less advantagous to build 'monotone' fleets of just one or two classes and ignore the rest.
2. A second goal was to try and make every defensive ship useful against at least one attack fleet.

How effectively do you feel these goals have been met with the current stats and in what ways do you guys feel things could have been tweaked to better meet these goals?

[Heartless]

Monroe, you shouldn't forgot about the not-so-experienced or more casual players which do not want to spend time between rounds studying all the changes. Heck, even me as an experienced player it annoys that ships like a corsair are now CO instead of FI, while the old CO (cutlass) is now FI. And so on. It's a matter of continuity for one, and it should not be the task of stats to create an interesting round. The game itself has to be interesting, the stats should only provide rudimentary base for good combats, i.e. allow defending and attacking at a level that roids can pay off.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Monroe

So if we can please stop arguing in circles and get back to pointing out strengths and deficiencies in the stats I would appreciate it.

For starters, messing around with the current stealing and it's initiative was a very very bad idea indeed. You created a ship that basically fires at xandathrii initiative (if we can even talk about xandathrii initiative anymore, irregardless before it's targeted defence ship) at a whooping efficiency index rate of 561. What I am trying to say, is, that in compared to it's initiative, the thief shoots *way* too hard. The high damages for the zikonian steal ships don't only compensate for the loss of ships when stealing, but also the ackward initiative. Regards to what other things drove the terrans down, I already gave some suggestions during the private beta.

Unless this is a part of those good principles you are on abou?

[Gary]

"1. One goal was to try and force people to spread out their resources across ship classes so that it would be less advantagous to build 'monotone' fleets"

You didn't really expect Terrans to build phoenix and harpy to get away from monotone fleets? Even leaving Phoenix at base is suicide. A Terran with sense will send DE/BS to attack and Syren as an anti Etd BS defence ship. Given how hard it is to cover Terran incs, and how easy it is for phoenix and harpy to be fleet trapped, it is impossible not to leave gaps. That ofc assumes a Terran will want three fleets out all the time, and doesn't leave a fleet in reserve to run from incs.

As for Chimera, I wont even waste my breath about those

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Monroe, you shouldn't forgot about the not-so-experienced or more casual players which do not want to spend time between rounds studying all the changes. Heck, even me as an experienced player it annoys that ships like a corsair are now CO instead of FI, while the old CO (cutlass) is now FI. And so on. It's a matter of continuity for one, and it should not be the task of stats to create an interesting round. The game itself has to be interesting, the stats should only provide rudimentary base for good combats, i.e. allow defending and attacking at a level that roids can pay off.

This is a good point and I would be curious as to what the general opinion on this is. Maybe someone who is capable of starting a poll would be kind enough to run a poll on what should be done for stats for next round, ie whether to use the current set as a basis, another set for a basis, or start over.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Monroe

This is a good point and I would be curious as to what the general opinion on this is. Maybe someone who is capable of starting a poll would be kind enough to run a poll on what should be done for stats for next round, ie whether to use the current set as a basis, another set for a basis, or start over.

I have no idea which sets have been good when Eitraides have been included. Before then, I have a feeling Round 15 had good stats, as did Round 18? I don't know, didn't really play either of those round.



Regarding ship names:

Try to retain as much continuity as possible. If a ship is no longer in existence (e.g. the Beetle, which should be a CO targetting FI), then simply drop it in favour of another name. There's stats going back to Round 6/7 with appropriate names for ships, don't be afraid to use those if they have the right ship.

People like me, Sovereign, Rob and Jester all remember these so don't be afraid to start up discussion threads about ship names.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by furball

I have no idea which sets have been good when Eitraides have been included. Before then, I have a feeling Round 15 had good stats, as did Round 18? I don't know, didn't really play either of those round.

18 was horrid.
17 was good.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

17 was good.

That'll do for me - I didn't play either round. I don't think it's a great idea to keep the same stats forever, but some stability is always nice. Tweaking good stats to fix any minor holes generally leads to good rounds.

[Mzyxptlk]

Although my point was not exactly that we should tweak stats between rounds, I'm glad it stopped the flamefest, thereby reaching what I wanted to achieve with my post.

As for tweaks vs. new stats, I am against having the same stats every round, with only minor tweaks in between. However, using more or less the same stats for 2 rounds surely cannot hurt, and would do a world of good for the balance, especially for the second round. Alternatively, we could reuse stats from an earlier round, for example the r17 ones.

[Stoom]

Let jester and jer make stats. nqp.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Stoom

Let jester and jer make stats. nqp.

You're so going to die for that suggestion. And if I'd agree with you I'd die as well.

Anyway, what's wrong with continous stats? It's not like Command & Conquer or StarCraft have completely new unit values with every patch, they are merely just tweaking the stats.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Anyway, what's wrong with continous stats? It's not like Command & Conquer or StarCraft have completely new unit values with every patch, they are merely just tweaking the stats.

Well I would say that the stats are the largest change between one round and the next that is directly tied to game mechanics. IMO other then stats the only change that has a larger impact between one round and the next are the allies and the politics between them. So if stats are pretty much static the differentiation between one round and the next is mostly just politics. Maybe this is a good thing, but I would lean towards it being boring.

[Wandows]

Stats aren't everything though. The game mechanics do not change by changing the stats, you just change the values ppl use and which are best to use for that round. You still end up sending attack and defence fleets like any other round, the numbers and names of the content just changed.

There is alot more you can tweak between rounds than just stats, hence imo having "static" stats wouldn't be a bad thing. It gives players something they know to fall back on. You can just as easy change race, government, population, research and/or construction bonusses to offer a new strategical game each round. And i personally find it annoying that the ship targetting and/or classes change each round as it is alot more confusing instead of really adding anything. Its much like the addition of the Etd race, its all very fun and interesting the first few weeks when it is new, but in the end doesn't really add much to the game.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Monroe

Well I would say that the stats are the largest change between one round and the next that is directly tied to game mechanics. IMO other then stats the only change that has a larger impact between one round and the next are the allies and the politics between them. So if stats are pretty much static the differentiation between one round and the next is mostly just politics. Maybe this is a good thing, but I would lean towards it being boring.

Or, as Wandows pointed out already, the changes come from yourself trying something different / the game providing more interesting mechanics? After all, with just "minor" tweaks to stats between each round you'll end up with fairly different stats after doing that for 2-3 rounds in a row. As said before, the stats should NOT make up for an interesting game (and they do not btw, few days after stats are out good combinations are already found / discussed and the rest depends upon the signups how other people build fleets anyway).
It's nice to see that you think that the stats makers should at least try to inject fun into the game if the other developers seem unable to do that, but it really is the wrong way imho. Also, big changes between rounds do not always have to happen. We just need an interesting game for once. But all this is going off-topic in here, I'll post this on Suggestions now.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Or, as Wandows pointed out already, the changes come from yourself trying something different / the game providing more interesting mechanics? After all, with just "minor" tweaks to stats between each round you'll end up with fairly different stats after doing that for 2-3 rounds in a row. As said before, the stats should NOT make up for an interesting game (and they do not btw, few days after stats are out good combinations are already found / discussed and the rest depends upon the signups how other people build fleets anyway).

You make several good points, and I don't mind being wrong. I would still like to see a poll on this topic, but I would also be open to using the current or an older set as a basis. Believe it or not the current set IS based on the r20 stats, there were just a lot of things wrong with the r20 stats imo, so that's why it looks so different.

Part of the reason I created this thread was to look at how the current stats could be tweaked to make things more balanced, so further thoughts on that topic, and answers to my earlier questions are most appreciated.

[TheShadowMan]

playin terran, cant hold onto a roid for love nor money but havin great fun faking de as bs against eit. Funny when they dont leave their brokers at home.

Also nice ter combo is dragon + levi vs investor heavy eit.

Ultimate game of chicken tho is faking de as bs vs xans heh

They really are a race for xp, but if ye can hold onto the roids and build up your value they could still be few in t100 before round end.

[Tietäjä]

A little more to the round, and we have, in top 100:

2 Terrans.
12 Cathaars.
15 Xandathrii.
31 Zikonian.
40 Eitrades.

Originally Posted by Monroe

I think this round has shown that the principles I used to create the stats are in fact a good set of principles and can in theory lead to balanced stats.

Looking at the data (hell, you could even make a model of them if you were arsed and get some good predictions for the reminder of the round), it looks like this kind of a development will escalate. Any comments on this? Regarding what it tells about principles used, and how these principles perhaps failed, and how they are to be developed? With less time left than last time we thought the principles that were used were good, it's looking like the principles are getting worse day by day.

[isildurx]

EDTs seems to be a pain to roid, so they get huge.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

A little more to the round, and we have, in top 100:

2 Terrans.
12 Cathaars.
15 Xandathrii.
31 Zikonian.
40 Eitrades.

Looking at the data (hell, you could even make a model of them if you were arsed and get some good predictions for the reminder of the round), it looks like this kind of a development will escalate. Any comments on this? Regarding what it tells about principles used, and how these principles perhaps failed, and how they are to be developed? With less time left than last time we thought the principles that were used were good, it's looking like the principles are getting worse day by day.

The point of this thread is not to discuss design principles, I would be happy however to discuss various theories with you or anyone else on IRC or in a different thread.

In my opinion what the slow trend shows is that etd are a bit overpowered and that terrans are weak. The increase in ziks is expected late in the round, ziks were scaled back some from last round, but it appears they could use a little more scaling back. It's a tough balance, especially since many of the best players tend to go zik. What appear to be minor changes to the stats can have a large overall impact on the game. My personally opinion (in line with isildurx) is that etd have become very hard to roid late in the round and so are starting to get too far ahead. This is in large part because of two ships, the merchant and the broker, rarely die and stop three otherwise effective attack fleets. So the universe has become over populated with these two ships leading to an imbalance that etd have been able to exploit to hold onto roids better then intended.

In addition the weakness of terrans naturally leads to ziks and etd to doing well as ziks and etd are the natural target of terran DE, which are very weak in numbers this round. It is my opinion at this point in the round that if etd merchants and brokers were slightly weaker, and terran ships a bit tougher things would be much more balanced overall.

[Benneh]

Then you have cathaar.

Who gets ****ed daily with incomings cause the spider is utterly wank.
People say its effective but its not in a roiding fleet like the etds.

Cath also get screwed by the highest production time.

We dont stand a fking chance.

Ps we also screw ourselfs over, people say cr is insanely strong. It really isnt. ETDs have so much bs + some mara its a pull.

Scarabs work so well. 30k scarabs and the call is effectivly covered. you shit on the cr and then make it wipe your ass if its still standing.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Monroe

The point of this thread is not to discuss design principles, I would be happy however to discuss various theories with you or anyone else on IRC or in a different thread.

Then you shouldn't have brought your personal design principle brag into the thread. Whatever the principles you used were, the reminder of the round will underpin the shown fact that they failed.

Originally Posted by Monroe

In my opinion what the slow trend shows is that etd are a bit overpowered and that terrans are weak. The increase in ziks is expected late in the round, ziks were scaled back some from last round, but it appears they could use a little more scaling back.

Eitrades are a bit overpowered with 40% top100 presense with five races? In lack of a better, stronger adjective, yes, "a bit". The increase in zikonian is very expected. If it was so expected, why was nothing done about it prior to the round? I'm sure for example the thief has been mentioned several times during the round and prior to the round as a massive problem in both terran and zikonian setup. It's out of scales of the current steal, and just. Well. You get the point.

Originally Posted by Monroe

It's a tough balance, especially since many of the best players tend to go zik.

It's not the bottom line though, a lot of "best" players this round went eitrades and cathaar too. Down to it, the best players often pick the races they perceive as best. The whole "I-only-play-zikonian" is just a small and loud group of people.

Originally Posted by Monroe

What appear to be minor changes to the stats can have a large overall impact on the game. My personally opinion (in line with isildurx) is that etd have become very hard to roid late in the round and so are starting to get too far ahead.

This was predicted.

Originally Posted by Keizari

...and they seem the strongest option defensively... Overall, eitrades seem like an excellent choice for the round

Originally Posted by Monroe

This is in large part because of two ships, the merchant and the broker, rarely die and stop three otherwise effective attack fleets.

So the fact that eitrades are overpowered is because of merchant and broker? It's hardly that black-and-white, but yes, they work good.

Originally Posted by Monroe

So the universe has become over populated with these two ships leading to an imbalance that etd have been able to exploit to hold onto roids better then intended.

So the only problems you find are "Broker" and "Merchant". Are you serious?

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

So the only problems you find are "Broker" and "Merchant". Are you serious?

Would you please quit taking everything I say as an absolute. Everything I state here is open for discussion and it is perfectly conceivable to me that I am in fact wrong. If you or anyone else has useful suggestions I am happy to listen to them but just stating that I am wrong is not very helpful.