|
21 Mar 2009, 20:31
|
#1
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Capping, based on value
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 22:44
|
#2
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Capping, based on value
Teamups with lots of fleets are good.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 23:10
|
#3
|
Non directed and witty
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #ascendancy
Posts: 814
|
Re: Capping, based on value
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"
__________________
CATHAAAAAARGH
I've won 4 rounds.
I'm kinda a big deal.
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 23:36
|
#4
|
Klaatu barada nikto
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
|
Re: Capping, based on value
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?
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
|
|
|
22 Mar 2009, 02:37
|
#5
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Capping, based on value
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.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
22 Mar 2009, 04:17
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Capping, based on value
Quote:
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
22 Mar 2009, 04:31
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Capping, based on value
Quote:
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
22 Mar 2009, 04:41
|
#8
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
Re: Capping, based on value
Epic battles of ridiculous fleet amounts are one of the few things that keeps the game interesting.
__________________
Rnd 1-7 Lost Honourguard (HC) WoH Bluetuba(BC) VtS(BC)
Rnd 26-32 Jenova Denial (BC) Newdawn (HC)
Rnd 33 Retired
|
|
|
22 Mar 2009, 04:44
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Capping, based on value
Quote:
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
22 Mar 2009, 05:21
|
#10
|
Klaatu barada nikto
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
|
Re: Capping, based on value
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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?
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53.
| |