Capping, based on value

[MrLobster]

So I want to stop noob bashing and put a damper on multi-fleet team ups so to allow the new players to grow.

This was taken from round 5 manual.

Capturing asteroids

The formula for capturing asteroids is "brand new", yet many could recognize a lot of elements from the capping back in round 3.

Keep in mind, that all attacking fleets have been merged into 1 big virtual hostile fleet for this calculation:

Capresult = (homeplanet-networth / virtual-hostile-fleet networth) / 10

If the capresult is higher than 0.15 (15%) it is brought down to 0.15, so the maximum amount of asteroids you can lose per tick is 15%.

The above quote featured a 15% map cap, but currently we use a 25% cap. Its 15% because you had 3 ticks of attacking back in the old days. So max cap would be 25% and formula will be thus

Capresult = ( homeplanet-networth / virtual-hostile-fleet networth ) / 6

Anyway this should have players do one of three things

1) Launch smaller fleets at smaller targets, rather than large fleets at smaller planets.
2) Send full fleets at larger targets.
3) Puts a damper on large team ups (currently nothing to stop 15 similar sized planets attack you)..

Ok lets see if the capresult formula stills works, using my last attack for reference.

Attacker Fleet Value = 2m
Defender Value = 3.6m

Capresult = (3600000 / 2000000) / 6 = 0.3 = 30% cap

Lets try with multi hostiles

Attacker Fleet Value = 2m + 1.7m = 3.7m
Defender Value = 3.6m

Capresult = (3600000 / 3700000) / 6 = 0.16 = 16% cap

You still need the bash limit, to stop newbs getting fleet caught.

[Mzyxptlk]

Teamups with lots of fleets are good.

[Benneh]

i wouldnt define them as good, personally i hate the way it is. You literally have to send 15 people to roid one person but i cant see it working any other way. Yes this might help the small people from being bashed but on the other end of the scale it will make big planets near impossible to actually roid down.

Especially the cathaaarghs.

"oh no look 20 people have come to roid me they will cap 100 roids pft"

[Tactitus]

I'd be very careful about using a round 5-based capping formula. Round 5 was (in)famous for piggybacking (or reverse piggybacking since it involved 'friendly attackers'). Whenever you couldn't cover an attack, you'd get friends to join in the attack against you. Their fleet value would help drive the cap down. This resulted in (a) a lot fewer roids lost, and (b) many of the roids that were lost went to friends rather than enemies (and of course, you'd return the favor when they were attacked ). Coupled with a generous salvage formula, this led to weeks of inconclusive combats. :/


Are people really teaming up on noobs?

[MrLobster]

back in round 5, the term alliance was just a name. You didnt get any benifit, or restriction on who you attacked, so you could attack your own alliance, thus producing the defencive piggy attack.

These days though you cant attack alliance members, so that in itself stops a lot of piggy defence.

I think most value players will try and hit just above thier bash limit, just to get roids.

I've attacked people with decent scores and got nothing out of it, 1 defence and i'm screwed. So switching to lower tier players isnt fun but its more likely to get roids.

[[JungleMuffin]]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Teamups with lots of fleets are good.

Im sure they could work defending fleet value into the formula, and if someone decides to over cover, in order to get past def, well then they lose out roids on the attack, tough titties.

[[JungleMuffin]]

Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]

Im sure they could work defending fleet value into the formula, and if someone decides to over cover, in order to get past def, well then they lose out roids on the attack, tough titties.

Ill elaborate. If Alliances chose to significantly over cover a target in order to get past ally/gal def, and chose to let all fleets land, then too bad. If on the other hand, with 40+% of an alliance tag essentially being flak, a combination of high/low value can be handy for an XP cap, having high value members recall, and at the same time, u may on a different target, have smaller value players flacking out for a high value player roid cap.

Most people wont have probblems with recalling a 15 roid split in one attack, if they cap 200k score with another. Im sure most alliances wouldnt argue either, as it brings their lesser players a bit closer to score giving range, somewhat of a whip to the muel, or a cointingency plan for too many crashes.

[Vladel]

Epic battles of ridiculous fleet amounts are one of the few things that keeps the game interesting.

[[JungleMuffin]]

Originally Posted by Vladel

Epic battles of ridiculous fleet amounts are one of the few things that keeps the game interesting.

If by Epic battles, you mean Ronin's courageous beetles, fighting against a hundred Asc Death fleets, i whole heartedly agree.

If not, then i blv u are referring to r3.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by MrLobster

back in round 5, the term alliance was just a name. You didnt get any benifit, or restriction on who you attacked, so you could attack your own alliance, thus producing the defencive piggy attack.

These days though you cant attack alliance members, so that in itself stops a lot of piggy defence.

I said 'friends' rather than 'alliance' for a reason. The round 5 tactic worked just as well with non-alliance friends--members of NAPed alliances, friends, even idlers in public channels. It was pretty easy to get friendly attackers. They wouldn't get many roids, but their risk was low; and they'd be helping you lose fewer roids. Win-win!

I think most value players will try and hit just above thier bash limit, just to get roids.

I've attacked people with decent scores and got nothing out of it, 1 defence and i'm screwed. So switching to lower tier players isnt fun but its more likely to get roids.

Fewer roids but lower risk--where have I heard that before?