User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 6 Dec 2015, 16:25   #1
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Improvement in Score

Problem 1: Fiercely defending one's roids is as rewarding as avoiding incs through mass agreements.

Problem 2: Ally total XP was more or less the same among the top 5 alliances. Which means XP is also not dividing the alliances by activity the way it works.

Proposal: Work XP in a way it represents game acomplishments.

Suggestions:

- each inc recalled would give 1000 XP divided among defenders
- each inc recalled would remove 500 XP divided among attackers
- each inc landed would remove XP divided among defenders based on the following formulae: XP_removed = 500 * (roids_capped / total_cap) * (1 - attacker_value_lost / total_attackers_value)

Another suggestion to diminish escorting power:

I can see escorting being used for two purposes:
1) recovering a planet after being massively roided
2) XP lands

Imo a way to diminish the effectiveness of (2) without making (1) impossible would be to reduce the cap in 1% por each attacker that recalled in that wave.
__________________
mxy

Last edited by fortran; 6 Dec 2015 at 16:54. Reason: editted xp suggestions
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Dec 2015, 16:36   #2
Adapt
Leader Of The Gang
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 428
Adapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really nice
Re: Improvement in Score

that would be fun i like the idea of being reward better for defending
__________________
[Ultores] Round 59,60,77,78,79,80,81
[ODDR] Round 39,40,44
[Howling Rain] Round 58
[Conspiracy] Round 63,64,75,76
[NewDawn] Round 65
[FAnG] Round 71,73,74
Adapt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Dec 2015, 16:45   #3
Bram
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
Bram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to behold
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
- each inc landed would remove 500 XP divided among defenders
Please define 'landed'?

i.e.
  • does the attacker need to cap roids? (attackes fully emped still removes 500 xp?)
  • do attacking ships need to survive? (attackers crashing 1 ship fleets/pod fleets on def: still removes 500 xp?)
  • ...
Bram is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Dec 2015, 16:52   #4
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram View Post
Please define 'landed'?

i.e.
  • does the attacker need to cap roids? (attackes fully emped still removes 500 xp?)
  • do attacking ships need to survive? (attackers crashing 1 ship fleets/pod fleets on def: still removes 500 xp?)
  • ...
Ok, formulae could be like that:

Each inc landed would remove 500 xp among defenders based on:
XP removed = 500 * (roids_capped / total_cap) * (1 - attacker_value_lost / total_attackers_value)
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 00:23   #5
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

If you want to discourage the evasion of incs by mass agreements you dont want xp to be degraded by landings.
Why?
The spread of incs and defence is always and always will be rather unfair, some people get very little defence and/or high incs and are likely to lose great chunks of xp.
This may not have anything to do with them being lazy about defence themselves or unwilling to organise it since in many allies most people dont get to allocate their own defence.
Furthermore, in a gangbang situation those who are beyond the abilities of the alliance to defend or are hit by allies which are the support rather than principal members of the block often end up with a whole series of waves being closed. Some guys could lose 3/4k xp in a day simply because they were hit by the wrong ally.
how do you avoid this situation arising? oh yes, NAPS!
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 00:42   #6
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

Im very much in favour of improved defence xp or xp for recalls.
However, i'm not sure it needs to be both, im sure someone with a head for figures will correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that over half of all launches end up as recalls.
I think launched 94 attacks, I landed only about 30, and I doubt that is atypical. So if 1k xp is generated by a recall I have given away 64k xp all by myself! That is two and a half times my ultimate xp this round.
There would need to be a great deal of fine tuning to prevent xp swinging from being all about attacks to being all about defence.
The current 300 would be much more reasonable, since it would be being allocated much more frequently than it is at the moment.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?

Last edited by [B5]Londo; 7 Dec 2015 at 00:53.
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 02:42   #7
Cochese
Retired
 
Cochese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,570
Cochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond reputeCochese has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Improvement in Score

Off the top of my head:

1k xp divided for defenders is probably too high. Zero-loss def-ships are a prime example.

500 xp removed from attacker(s) might be too high.

Why remove xp for defenders against attacks landed, unless it's "over defended"? I'm terrible at math so excuse me if that's what you were alluding to.

-

For escorts, I'm not sure something could be coded to work "properly" given what you have suggested. 1% cap reduction, in general is probablly too low if you're looking to nerf-bat the shit out of escorts.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.

Utterly useless since r3
Cochese is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 03:20   #8
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by Londo
If you want to discourage the evasion of incs by mass agreements you dont want xp to be degraded by landings.
Why?
The spread of incs and defence is always and always will be rather unfair, some people get very little defence and/or high incs and are likely to lose great chunks of xp.
This may not have anything to do with them being lazy about defence themselves or unwilling to organise it since in many allies most people dont get to allocate their own defence.
Furthermore, in a gangbang situation those who are beyond the abilities of the alliance to defend or are hit by allies which are the support rather than principal members of the block often end up with a whole series of waves being closed. Some guys could lose 3/4k xp in a day simply because they were hit by the wrong ally.
how do you avoid this situation arising? oh yes, NAPS!
The intention behind my idea is to apply a major change in the way winners are decided. And it is open for adjustments.
When I suggested a 1k xp per inc, I had in mind the 'wave' in a raid, not the number of fleets. It could be something different, like 1000 * (value_attackers / 2*value_target) up to a maximum of 5000. The great the bashing, the more rewarding would be to defend it.
The idea is to reward defense, more than to punish the failed defense in a way even in a gangbang an alliance would be able to profit.

On the other hand an ally which manages well 10-15 waves a night through a good amount of deals, gaining a steady amount of XP, would lose it all if they aren't capable of defending when they are blocked against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese View Post
Why remove xp for defenders against attacks landed, unless it's "over defended"? I'm terrible at math so excuse me if that's what you were alluding to.
I couldn't think in a way to evaluate the quality of the defense. In that formula, if cap is near zero, or attacking fleet almost destroyed, the XP lost by the defenders are close to zero.

Quote:
For escorts, I'm not sure something could be coded to work "properly" given what you have suggested. 1% cap reduction, in general is probablly too low if you're looking to nerf-bat the shit out of escorts.
10 planets recalling last min would give -10% applied to the maximum (25% - 10% = 15% cap).
Considering a normal team-up of 3-4 recalling to make one land and recover roids, -2~3% in 25% will make little difference.

Another idea, that would need more code imo, would be to calculate the XP division based on all the attacking fleets which reached eta 1. Therefore, even if 10 fleets recall last min, the attacker which landed would get 1/11 of the XP.
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 09:10   #9
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
The idea is to reward defense, more than to punish the failed defense in a way even in a gangbang an alliance would be able to profit.

On the other hand an ally which manages well 10-15 waves a night through a good amount of deals, gaining a steady amount of XP, would lose it all if they aren't capable of defending when they are blocked against.
It doesnt seem to have occurred to you that defence is actually very good, despite it being a pain to organise and superficially unrewarding. The steady shift away from MT stats is proof of it because people couldnt land without attack orientated stats.
If you punish recalls and reward the defence you put a premium on being able to force lands. Otherwise to attack is simply to gift to your opponents.
In order to avoid your nightly raid rewarding your opponents alliances will be forced to gangbang even more than they do already, because this is the only way of ensuring that at least half of an attack lands and thus does not simply reward your target.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 10:39   #10
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
In order to avoid your nightly raid rewarding your opponents alliances will be forced to gangbang even more than they do already, because this is the only way of ensuring that at least half of an attack lands and thus does not simply reward your target.
Idd, that would be the consequence. That's what would happen when modifying focusing on single incs. Will it be good or bad?

----

Another approach would be to reward more the wars and encourage 1x1. Like I remember seeing in Utopia, when two 'gals' decided to war each other, the gain if in their attacks increased and the attacks from outside the war had a way reduced cap. The downside of it, like in Utopia, the war feature was used to protect one another aswell.

Maybe if cap was reduced both ways, for incs outside the war and raids outside the war, like:
- cap 40% within the war
- cap 10% outside
Maybe like these, alliances wouldn't choose to just war just to protect themselves. The only case that would be profitable would be like faceless was last round, sitting on 90k roids.

Also, how wars are used could be judged. Using the game feature just to protect oneself could be a reason for punishment. In the GoT online board game, kingmaking and complacence are against rules, everyone should play for the win or to stop one from winning. There, with 30-40 games a day, it works. Although PA is more complex, the number of cases to judge would be very few. The judgement would be subjective idd, but that imo could also not encourage alliances to try this maneuver.
__________________
mxy

Last edited by fortran; 7 Dec 2015 at 10:40. Reason: english
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 10:54   #11
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

The current war system doesnt work like that at all. Declaring a war does not affect both sides, only those who declare it. They get increased cap on their chosen target, and reduced on those who are not.
But this does not protect their victim from other alliances in any way.
If not being part of a war reduced the cap of 'random incs' ie the supporting allies in the current gangbang setup, then that would certainly be a major change.
However, this would simply encourage all allies in a block to declare war at once and all have raised caps, the gangbang would just be quicker!
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 11:09   #12
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
If not being part of a war reduced the cap of 'random incs' ie the supporting allies in the current gangbang setup, then that would certainly be a major change.
However, this would simply encourage all allies in a block to declare war at once and all have raised caps, the gangbang would just be quicker!
Oh I forgot to mention, the reason it was abused in Utopia was because one 'alliance' could only be in war against a single 'alliance'.
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 11:34   #13
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
However, this would simply encourage all allies in a block to declare war at once and all have raised caps, the gangbang would just be quicker!
Easy avoided by having it so that the bonus is reduced for each ally that is at war with the same alliance creating an incentive to fight one on one. This however would be rendered pointless if never gaining anything as a result of not landing and losing xp that way.

This recalling xp also encourages inefficient use of fleets - where alliances now pull the unnecessary fleets once through ally/gal def this would become counterproductive.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 11:38   #14
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by booji View Post
This recalling xp also encourages inefficient use of fleets - where alliances now pull the unnecessary fleets once through ally/gal def this would become counterproductive.
And inefficient def too.
If you are punished for failing a def then people would rather not launch a def unless they were damn sure it was going to be successful, this encourages very heavy defence of some incs and conversely less on others meaning that only the target takes the xp hit rather than any ally defence (even tough the overall loss is the same, the target cant avoid it, selfish defenders can!).
The shakey defence with the mail saying 'finish it ingal!' would cease to be a sensible option.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 11:42   #15
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
even tough the overall loss is the same, the target cant avoid it, selfish defenders can!
Hmmmm. Its not actually stated whether the same loss occurs if there is no defence. I had been assuming it does not. If it does than this really hurts alliances like Norse or FC/HEROES that are built on attacks and no defence to the point that this would seem to be unnecessarily limiting how people play the game.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 11:49   #16
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by booji View Post
Hmmmm. Its not actually stated whether the same loss occurs if there is no defence. I had been assuming it does not. If it does than this really hurts alliances like Norse or FC/HEROES that are built on attacks and no defence to the point that this would seem to be unnecessarily limiting how people play the game.
The intention is to cause a Xp loss in case of nodef. That would idd hurt alliances with no intention of defending. But the aim of those alliances is usually not ranking. Those alliances find ways to play the game even not aiming for ranking.
Really, I can't see alternatives methods of winning top ally/player without playing the game to its fullest or without abusing a game feature.
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 11:59   #17
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

This whole system seems to be designed to punish the already lower alliances and favour the already powerful. It is already obvious that top ranking tends to go to the best defenders, as butcher never tired of pointing out this round. And that is right enough, but why tilt the playing field further in their favour?

If you do intend to have loss incurred by land, then how is the lost xp allocated?
It has to be by planet rather than fleet since the base fleet does not currently count as a fleet (if hiding): a clean land shows on the combat reports part of the universe page as Attacking fleets 1 Defending fleets 0.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 12:09   #18
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
This whole system seems to be designed to punish the already lower alliances and favour the already powerful.
Yes, the system is proposed focusing on the top 3~5 alliances. The gap to the bottom of the top 10 would sure increase. The objective was to propose a better way to select the top 1 among the contenders using XP. The main challenge imo in that idea is the right balance of situations were one would gain or lose XP so that one wouldn't run easily with the win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
If you do intend to have loss incurred by land, then how is the lost xp allocated?
It has to be by planet rather than fleet since the base fleet does not currently count as a fleet (if hiding): a clean land shows on the combat reports part of the universe page as Attacking fleets 1 Defending fleets 0.
Agreed, it should be coded that way. Defenders would include the target and defending planets.
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 12:11   #19
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Improvement in Score

There has usually been a lot of opposition to losing xp and aside from the usual problems (possible negative xp! Makes value even more important…) there would seem to be other problems as a result of this just being to take away xp at what is essentially an alliance level. This leads to the question of why should xp not be taken away for other things. If it is experience then it seems much more logical to take it away for crashes (all those experienced pilots dying). Or why should we not have an xp stealing cov op (basically bribing pilots etc.)?

Taking away xp like this unfortunately damages casual elements of the game; it punishes anyone who does not have an alliance big time, and punishes those in casual alliances who don’t def well… and often don’t attack well either! Generally we don’t want to be making the game more hardcore than it already is as we mostly agree that the biggest problem is lack of players.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 12:16   #20
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by booji View Post
There has usually been a lot of opposition to losing xp and aside from the usual problems (possible negative xp! Makes value even more important…) there would seem to be other problems as a result of this just being to take away xp at what is essentially an alliance level. This leads to the question of why should xp not be taken away for other things. If it is experience then it seems much more logical to take it away for crashes (all those experienced pilots dying). Or why should we not have an xp stealing cov op (basically bribing pilots etc.)?

Taking away xp like this unfortunately damages casual elements of the game; it punishes anyone who does not have an alliance big time, and punishes those in casual alliances who don’t def well… and often don’t attack well either! Generally we don’t want to be making the game more hardcore than it already is as we mostly agree that the biggest problem is lack of players.
Alliances XP could be a different parameter from Player XP. All those features could be implemented to affect alliance XP only. Players would sum XP and never lose it. Alliances would sum the XP players gain each tick but lose in those situations.
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 12:20   #21
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

in which case is this not all as meaningless as those alliance points that already exist?
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 12:28   #22
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
in which case is this not all as meaningless as those alliance points that already exist?
If they are not to be used for ranking. Idd, as meaningless. Those points, if open to the playerbase how they are counted, could be used for ranking.

Imo ally ranking is lacking something. Ally play is dependent on Ultores atm. If Ultores is playing seriously and is among the contenders, the top 1 is decided through wars, if not, it is decided by who naps more.

How players are select on the other hand is fine, all top 10 players this round were among the tops the whole round, holding their roids, etc. Only the 'bravery factor' should be adjusted in non-brave situations
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 12:39   #23
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
If they are not to be used for ranking. Idd, as meaningless. Those points, if open to the playerbase how they are counted, could be used for ranking.
I assume this was the original intention, never fully implemented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
Imo ally ranking is lacking something. Ally play is dependent on Ultores atm. If Ultores is playing seriously and is among the contenders, the top 1 is decided through wars, if not, it is decided by who naps more.
How would your system do anything to change this?
It wholly favours ult to the disadvantage of the others. The current system would be aggravated. On the one hand, an ever bigger block needed to stop ult by overcoming their def xp advantage. On the other, further reason to NAP and bash the allies whose defence is less efficient.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 12:55   #24
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo View Post
How would your system do anything to change this?
It wholly favours ult to the disadvantage of the others. The current system would be aggravated. On the one hand, an ever bigger block needed to stop ult by overcoming their def xp advantage. On the other, further reason to NAP and bash the allies whose defence is less efficient.
The system favours Ult way of playing and hinders alliances which main challenge some days is to select 10 planets that can be attacked without breaking their agreements.
If something like this is implemented, I expect a greater bash against an alliance like Ultores or they would run with the win. The goal is to diminish the chance of winning just by sitting on one's roids and encourage those allies to take action.
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 13:03   #25
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
If something like this is implemented, I expect a greater bash against an alliance like Ultores or they would run with the win.
Do we really want to encourage bashing? I thought that bashing and block wars were generally considered to be a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
The goal is to diminish the chance of winning just by sitting on one's roids and encourage those allies to take action.
I don’t see how it prevents sitting on ones roids. Indeed does it not make it more likely if someone has a big roid lead they sit on them. Add in this negative xp system and there is suddenly a chance that getting off the fence and attacking someone will benefit them not you even if they don’t attack you. The alliance with lots of roids has even less incentive to move because they are getting less from attack xp to balance against their possible def xp losses from the war – after all they are the ones who presumably have higher value. It also means they (and indeed everyone) have every incentive to try to limit incs so as to leverage that value by getting more and more of the few incs they have to recall and with it a nice juicy xp gain.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.

Last edited by booji; 7 Dec 2015 at 14:15. Reason: fixing quote
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 13:13   #26
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
... hinders alliances which main challenge some days is to select 10 planets that can be attacked without breaking their agreements.
... The goal is to diminish the chance of winning just by sitting on one's roids and encourage those allies to take action.
It gives no penalty to a fencer at all, it helps them. They will get a steady stream of 20/30 incs a day most of which they cover to their own considerable benefit. It further penalises them for getting entangled in any fights by seriously degrading their coverage and costing them score.

Nor is action against ult encouraged, this round the failure against ult was not one of ppl being willing to fight - ult fought allies most of the round in succession.
The failure was one of co-ordination those opposed to ult hit in teams of two in three then gave up. This sort of attack would now simply strengthen ults position. The result is all allies waiting until they are absolutely certain they have all 5/6 potential allies to attack ult ... it seems that this is only likely to occur when it is already far too late.
Plus the need for a lot of allies to co-ordinate makes it easier for ult to jam things up by peeling one or two allies off with diplomacy.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 13:21   #27
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,479
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
Problem 1: Fiercely defending one's roids is as rewarding as avoiding incs through mass agreements.
Serious question: why do you feel this is a problem? I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
Problem 2: Ally total XP was more or less the same among the top 5 alliances. Which means XP is also not dividing the alliances by activity the way it works.
It's pretty clear XP always played second fiddle to value. It only ever played a significant role during round 16, and by nerfing it into the ground for round 17, and further for round 18, PA Team demonstrated that XP is intentionally much worse than value, and that they want to keep it that way.

The addition of military centers could be considered a counter-evidence to that claim, but I'd argue that it accidentally made XP semi-viable. This was quickly rectified by nerfing XP back to roughly the level it was at before the introduction of military centers, except now you have to build MCs.

WIth that in mind, I have no clue why XP was ever introduced in the first place, if not to have an impact on the game. I don't think anyone else does either, and thus, it's a mechamism we can (ab)use to reach some other goal. So generally speaking, trying to use XP to solve problems with the game has my thumbs-up.

However, I don't like the specific approach you've chosen. Punishing attackers for failed attacks and/or rewarding defenders for successful defense (these are basically the same thing) would encourage attackers go for even safer targets than they already do, leading to an increase in blocking and bashing.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 13:31   #28
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

This last round the best ally won. In the previous one, a good ally won too, but round lacked fights among the contenders. Is the so called 'Political win' good or bad to the game? Any modification that hinders this way of playing will end up helping Ultores as they are today.

But I am convinced by you that a general rule would not work. Maybe those improvements should be made only to 'war mode' that should be more meaningful
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 13:38   #29
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,708
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

What about bigger tag limits? It will make it harder to do fence-all moves if they were say 80
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 13:53   #30
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
Serious question: why do you feel this is a problem? I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Imo, without a great military force fighting among the contenders, the best route to win the round is through a political lockdown. The 'second tier' alliances seem not to be capable of producing interesting round ends by themselves. At least not with the current game engine and features.
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 14:20   #31
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

I understand why you think this is a problem. What I dont understand is why you think these change offer a solution.

Im still convinced that penalizing poor defence will simply result in more inc evasion rather than a concerted effort to improve defence.
As has often been pointed out in the innumerable tag limit debates (dont start one BB!) there is a limited number of people willing to properly DC for the course of a night. As a result many allies would find it very hard to improve their defence no matter how incentivized it is.

Under these defence xp rules the only way to challenge ult would be a concerted effort to gather a large amount of active night defenders into one place and fight them on their own terms. However, a fight between two defensively orientated allies would be a rather strange affair - the two principal alliances Ult and Anti-Ult would sit back and defend accruing def xp while being assaulted by the other block members on each side.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 14:21   #32
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
Imo, without a great military force fighting among the contenders, the best route to win the round is through a political lockdown. The 'second tier' alliances seem not to be capable of producing interesting round ends by themselves. At least not with the current game engine and features.
Depending on who you consider to be second tier alliances this appears to simply be an untrue statement. Both the rounds p3n won had interesting wars that went on for most of the round with some political manouvering between alliances within the fighting blocks. The difference to the wars with Ult was that they were blocks with roughly even number of participants rather than a all bash one fest.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 14:26   #33
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

I missed last round (r63), I assume it must have been particularly dull, to have spawned this. IIRC r62 was quite interesting right to the end, with ult losing top in a fight againt BF/Asc but also fatally wounding Asc. R61 was a long 2vs2 fight Ult/FL vs BF/CT which was undecided til the last day. R60 had a dull end as Ult became too dominant.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?

Last edited by [B5]Londo; 7 Dec 2015 at 14:31. Reason: clarified last round means r63 not 64
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 14:28   #34
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,479
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Improvement in Score

I'm not sure I agree with distinguishing between 'rounds with a superpower' and 'rounds without superpowers'. It seems to me there's a ton of blocking in both types of rounds. That's a side-note, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran View Post
Imo, without a great military force fighting among the contenders, the best route to win the round is through a political lockdown. The 'second tier' alliances seem not to be capable of producing interesting round ends by themselves. At least not with the current game engine and features.
So your answer to 'why is this a problem?' is 'politics is boring, war is fun'? Is that a fair characterization?

A couple more questions: do you feel blocking is more common now than it was 10, 20, 30 rounds ago? If so, why do you think this is? What's changed? (I'm also interested in other people's answers!)
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 15:59   #35
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,708
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
I'm not sure I agree with distinguishing between 'rounds with a superpower' and 'rounds without superpowers'. It seems to me there's a ton of blocking in both types of rounds. That's a side-note, though.


So your answer to 'why is this a problem?' is 'politics is boring, war is fun'? Is that a fair characterization?

A couple more questions: do you feel blocking is more common now than it was 10, 20, 30 rounds ago? If so, why do you think this is? What's changed? (I'm also interested in other people's answers!)
Its simply not room for 9 equaly sized tags wich all have their own agenda in this game.
Some of the people who cry for my "fluent politics and small tags" are the same that cry for "blocking boring rounds".

If we are aiming for making the "margins for errors" bigger we need bigger tags.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 16:08   #36
[B5]Londo
Paso Leaute
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of[B5]Londo has much to be proud of
Re: Improvement in Score

Fluid surely...
I really don't see that a there was a politics problem this round.
Tags did switch sides. Faceless obviously did. One could arguably say Asgard moved from a position where they wouldnt hit Ult to being an implacable foe (though much diminished in size). CT went the other way, from an implacable foe to being unengaged even when circumstances would have permitted involvement with little risk to themselves.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
[B5]Londo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Dec 2015, 19:43   #37
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,479
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Improvement in Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
Its simply not room for 9 equaly sized tags wich all have their own agenda in this game.
The number of alliances has decreased. If this has caused more blocking, then the fix for that problem is decreasing tag size, not increasing it. Increasing the tag limit to further decrease the number of alliances would only make the problem worse. Now, I know changing the tag limits has a host of other effects on the game, but those are irrelevant to the questions posed by this thread.

I'd still like a clear identification of what exactly the problem is. Without that, any solution will be half-baked at best.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018