ToF

[Chika]

Their Ally Average is in the range of top 30 at the moment. In a round when you can find alliances initiating to 140 sometimes even 120ish, do you highlight your alliance when you instruct them to initiate to lets say 200?

[Stoom]

I would!

[Makhil]

finding 60 members active enough to initiate 200 roids is impressive. Initiating lower than 150 roids doesn't look like a good tactic anyway... missing too much resources. Incs at tick 72 can be easily covered with saved res from 200 roids.

[ReligFree]

Originally Posted by Makhil

finding 60 members active enough to initiate 200 roids is impressive. Initiating lower than 150 roids doesn't look like a good tactic anyway... missing too much resources. Incs at tick 72 can be easily covered with saved res from 200 roids.

i completely disagree. Initiating to 200 sticks a bullseye on your ass from pt 72. Im fairly sure you will be one to get incs. its easy to init to 200 roids, but not easy to init so frequently that you have about 400k stock of each resource to spend out of incomings easily. 200 roids isnt a good idea and i think ToF have possibly made a boo boo (yes i am a 6yr old girl) by doing it.

[Heartless]

The "oh no, 200 roids is just like a bullsmark on your ass!" mentality is one of the reasons why we see less roids in the universe each round.

That's probably connected to the 72 hours protection time, though, I think.

[coffee-]

Is this thread suggesting that ToF was instructed to init to 200 roids? Or is this thread saying they are instructed to init >150?

If you look at ToF's avg. roid it is very low compared to everyone elses, with a high avg. score. In the first 100 ticks of a round I'd say this indicates building constructions?

[coffee-]

Originally Posted by Makhil

finding 60 members active enough to initiate 200 roids is impressive. Initiating lower than 150 roids doesn't look like a good tactic anyway... missing too much resources. Incs at tick 72 can be easily covered with saved res from 200 roids.

It has been shown that you are able to save up for more ships by initing to 100ish roids. That is to say, you are able to save up for more pt72 attack ships. If you miss landing these first couple pod fleets, you are likely gonna be in for a slow start with this tactic.

[mens]

extend the protection so people init to 300.

[Hude]

Originally Posted by coffee-

If you look at ToF's avg. roid it is very low compared to everyone elses, with a high avg. score. In the first 100 ticks of a round I'd say this indicates building constructions?

1 Tides of Fire 11795 77 82,555 4,953,349

4,953,349 / 60 = 82,555

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Hude

1 Tides of Fire 11795 77 82,555 4,953,349

4,953,349 / 60 = 82,555

hude he was referring to te roid avg i think

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mens

extend the protection so people init to 300.

Doesnt the 200 limit on initing come down more to

1) By 200 roids the cost to init is starting to lose its cost effectivness

2) To handle more than 200 you need to have done 2 researches on resource handling which most people havent had the chance to do while trying to get other vital research done

If we want more roids in the universe at the start surely it would be better to actually do the following

1) either reduce the cost of initing or increase the resources a roid gives

2) Increase the base amount of roids we can handle and adjust the research levels to encourage more roids to be inited

[Tietäjä]

You might notice, that, the scoring system works different than announced pre-round.

Sandmans calculates averages based on how the announcement is (hence, it divides ToF total score by 60, which is, as announced the maximum amount of score-affecting planets a tag can hold). This results in a very high average score, roughly 20% ahead of the second place holder, Angels.

It's worth to notice that Angels has 58 people in tag, against ToF's 77. Now, Angels scores 4million, and ToF scores 25% more. Now why? Comparing to Pilkara, we notice, that ToF average is actually 65,998 at tick 88.

It's reasonably stupid to assume (no offence) that ToF could, in 88 ticks, pull a 25% lead to second ranking alliance, as the first attacks have just landed.

To sum up, Pilkara is at the moment the only tool that calculates averages correctly; the in-game system is false, as is Sandmans. They divide the total score (which is, the sum of all planets in the tag; in ToF's case, sum of 77 planets, in Angels' case, sum of 58 planets) by the number of planets or by 60, whichever is smaller.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

You might notice, that, the scoring system works different than announced pre-round.

Sandmans calculates averages based on how the announcement is (hence, it divides ToF total score by 60, which is, as announced the maximum amount of score-affecting planets a tag can hold). This results in a very high average score, roughly 20% ahead of the second place holder, Angels.

It's worth to notice that Angels has 58 people in tag, against ToF's 77. Now, Angels scores 4million, and ToF scores 25% more. Now why? Comparing to Pilkara, we notice, that ToF average is actually 65,998 at tick 88.

It's reasonably stupid to assume (no offence) that ToF could, in 88 ticks, pull a 25% lead to second ranking alliance, as the first attacks have just landed.

To sum up, Pilkara is at the moment the only tool that calculates averages correctly; the in-game system is false, as is Sandmans. They divide the total score (which is, the sum of all planets in the tag; in ToF's case, sum of 77 planets, in Angels' case, sum of 58 planets) by the number of planets or by 60, whichever is smaller.

lol if your right thats just hilarious as last time we had this system they messed it up the other way. while total score was just those that counted they decided to work the average out by dividing all the members

[Error]

im confused

[Hude]

Originally Posted by Mek

hude he was referring to te roid avg i think

and i was referring to the "high average" that is calculated wrong

edit: keizari has a better explanation, i was just lazy and assumed people are clever enough to sort it out themselves

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by Makhil

finding 60 members active enough to initiate 200 roids is impressive. Initiating lower than 150 roids doesn't look like a good tactic anyway... missing too much resources. Incs at tick 72 can be easily covered with saved res from 200 roids.

Tell that to HK, initiating just 50 roids last round and still top ~tick 110.

The best starts we ever had in eXilition were where we collectively initiated circa 140 roids each(depending on player race) and attacked relentlessly from t72. It does require that players put real effort into target picking carefully though, it's up to the player to make it work. For the alliance, it meant we had much less incomings & could cover our (limited) incomings.

It also meant we had more ships & income than other alliances once we'd landed. Last round was a little different as lots of our players invested in distorters making us look a little slower off the mark than we really were.

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by coffee-

It has been shown that you are able to save up for more ships by initing to 100ish roids. That is to say, you are able to save up for more pt72 attack ships. If you miss landing these first couple pod fleets, you are likely gonna be in for a slow start with this tactic.

but then how do you go to 200 ? by attacking at tick 72 ? well 2 people tried that tactic on me today. Good news for them is their fleet took only 1 tick to fly back home.

[jerome]

"good" early starts really are pretty overrated as hell

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by Makhil

but then how do you go to 200 ? by attacking at tick 72 ? well 2 people tried that tactic on me today. Good news for them is their fleet took only 1 tick to fly back home.

Only way to be sure is to wait till ~tick 120 then check the top 10 planets and see how many each initiated. Bets anyone?

Originally Posted by jerome

"good" early starts really are pretty overrated as hell

Says Mr "never in top10"

[gzambo]

as if a good start means anything these days , cypher proved a few rds ago when he started 2 weeks late iirc and finished top 10 ,
all tof have done is paint a bullseye on their members planets for 1st few nights off attack

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Tell that to HK, initiating just 50 roids last round and still top ~tick 110.

I know we were in the same gal when he did it :crazyxmas:

[jerome]

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

Says Mr "never in top10"

if anything this is proving me right, as apart from last round (and r13 which i started t500 or something on) i have always been top 10 early round! and last round where i didn't bother attacking till t150 or something i end my highest rank yet (and so deserved it was..!)

there it is guys, empirical proof that doing nothing is the best move for the early stage.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by gzambo

as if a good start means anything these days , cypher proved a few rds ago when he started 2 weeks late iirc and finished top 10 ,
all tof have done is paint a bullseye on their members planets for 1st few nights off attack

Landing with 3 alliance mates in the #1 gal and being helped a little isn't quite the same as what usually happens when signing up 2 weeks late.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by jerome

if anything this is proving me right, as apart from last round (and r13 which i started t500 or something on) i have always been top 10 early round! and last round where i didn't bother attacking till t150 or something i end my highest rank yet (and so deserved it was..!)

there it is guys, empirical proof that doing nothing is the best move for the early stage.

you were in elviz's gal though:\

[jerome]

hence the sarcastic remark about deserving it.....

[Alki]

sarcasm is lost on me, you of all people know this

[Synthetic_Sid]

I suspect alliance scoring is broken - and the ToF score/roids is total for all 77 members but the average is the total (for 77) divided by 60 (the number of members whose score is meant to count).

[Synthetic_Sid]

Leading on from which: we know alliance score is MEANT to be just the total for the 60 highest scoring members. But what is ASteroids meant to be:

a) Total roids of all members of alliance
b) Total roids of the 60 highest scoring members (the ones that SHOULD be counted for alliance score)
c) Total roids of the 60 members with most roids

Answers on a postcard to someone who cares.

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I suspect alliance scoring is broken - and the ToF score/roids is total for all 77 members but the average is the total (for 77) divided by 60 (the number of members whose score is meant to count).

i went through the ingame memberlist the other night(when our avg was 49k), ranked it by score and used a calculator to add all the top 60 players scores together and it did equal that of our alliance score at that time.

[Lokie]

Is this about ToF or about the score system?

[Ghost{}]

Originally Posted by Makhil

finding 60 members active enough to initiate 200 roids is impressive. Initiating lower than 150 roids doesn't look like a good tactic anyway... missing too much resources. Incs at tick 72 can be easily covered with saved res from 200 roids.

*removed comment*

suffice it to say 150 roids makes a lot more resources than innitiating up to 200 if you target players that pass you at the time you've already stopped innitiating.

[jerome]

why don't you idiots realise as long as you init to 200 roids max everything you do has more or less the same potential, 200 roids saved res for 8-10 ticks then fi or whatever att at t75~, or 50-150 roids saved res for upto 50~ ticks also can lead to a lot of roids, xp and so on. most important fact is, it means nothing as it is only the first few attacks out of prot :/

[Ghost{}]

aye, most important is tick 1-40.

However we're not talking about ToF or average score anymore, so how about we get back on topic.

Ofcourse I don't really have much to say It's not really worrying that avrg score doesn't function properly yet in many places, as It's the total score at the end of the round that counts. and We don't know which alliances are grouped together, and maybe ToF is allied too, can't tell yet, as also lots of alliances keep members hidden at the start for some reason making it very hard to evaluate.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I suspect alliance scoring is broken - and the ToF score/roids is total for all 77 members but the average is the total (for 77) divided by 60 (the number of members whose score is meant to count).

Yeah, so, exactly as I posted.

And exactly as I told remy and myk. Eh?

[Shyne]

Originally Posted by coffee-

Is this thread suggesting that ToF was instructed to init to 200 roids? Or is this thread saying they are instructed to init >150?

If you look at ToF's avg. roid it is very low compared to everyone elses, with a high avg. score. In the first 100 ticks of a round I'd say this indicates building constructions?

You speak the truth, wise coffee

[demiGOD]

ToF's playing?