Ascendancy - winners of Round 16?

[ComradeRob]

I went Terran last round too, when Appocomaster made the stats. My fleet then was ~240 DE, 120 harpies and 120 BS. My fleet now, with Jester's stats, is ~230 DE, 115 harpies and 115 BS, so I don't think the stats have made all that much difference.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

so I don't think the stats have made all that much difference.

except for how the top 100 has been completely changed

Just 9 caths left in there, compared to 40-odd terrans.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Gate

except for how the top 100 has been completely changed

Just 9 caths left in there, compared to 40-odd terrans.

I think he meant how stats haven't changed his way of playing

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I went Terran last round too, when Appocomaster made the stats. My fleet then was ~240 DE, 120 harpies and 120 BS. My fleet now, with Jester's stats, is ~230 DE, 115 harpies and 115 BS, so I don't think the stats have made all that much difference.

You have a fleet?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by ComradRob

My fleet now, with Jester's stats, is ~230 DE, 115 harpies and 115 BS

A small part of me died forever when I read this.

That said, should Ascendancy win it will be because they had the right idea as regards strategy and executed it (pretty much) flawlessly.

However it does grate on me that the whole alliance is completely immune to anything I can do as they play the game under my bash. It's somewhat frustrating :/

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Achilles

A small part of me died forever when I read this.

That said, should Ascendancy win it will be because they had the right idea as regards strategy and executed it (pretty much) flawlessly.

However it does grate on me that the whole alliance is completely immune to anything I can do as they play the game under my bash. It's somewhat frustrating :/

You should have thought of that before you got your value up If they win due to playing/executing it flawlessly as you say I think it's a and well done to them.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I went Terran last round too, when Appocomaster made the stats. My fleet then was ~240 DE, 120 harpies and 120 BS. My fleet now, with Jester's stats, is ~230 DE, 115 harpies and 115 BS, so I don't think the stats have made all that much difference.

exactly, rethinking about last round it was nearly the same.

i remember us cathaars in the reunion tag xp-whoring very well. (well borgorth and rember had a very low value atleast.) it just wasnt common last round.

maybe ascendancy would win last round, too ?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Nadar

If they win due to playing/executing it flawlessly as you say I think it's a and well done to them.

Absolutely. No question.

I'd be a pretty shit 1up player if I was happy about it though.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Legator

exactly, rethinking about last round it was nearly the same.

i remember us cathaars in the reunion tag xp-whoring very well. (well borgorth and rember had a very low value atleast.) it just wasnt common last round.

maybe ascendancy would win last round, too ?

r12/13/15 would've been pretty easily conquerable in my eyes, if gone in this style. not so much r11/14 where 1up ran away with it and value played a much bigger role with many over 8k roids and 45% mining bonuses etc.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Banned

I am in Ascendancy, and I did make the stats. But I was also in 1up in round 13 when I made the stats and no one complained then. I also didn't give any more advice to people in Ascendancy than I did to 1up in round 13. (Same policy as with 1up in round 13. I was willing to discuss them, but I didn't tell people what race to go. Mostly I just told people to shut up and ask someone else, as I was sick of the stats already.)

actually i think some people did, but their complaints were as unfounded that round as they are this one.
Stats are entirely public, it is not possible to hide things in them.
If you didnt see the tactic yourself, then you have only yourselves to blame.
You cant use jesterina as a scapegoat, nor cry "omg hax, conspiracy" when you realise hes in ascendancy

[Cannon_Fodder]

Phil, your quote is confusing

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

You dont make any sense. Go to the Emma Watson forum pls

Url to emma watson forum.

I think I ll fit inn?

oh, and I rather c 1up winning then Ascendancy.

Xp hoes FTL

woohoo

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by jerome

r12/13/15 would've been pretty easily conquerable in my eyes, if gone in this style. not so much r11/14 where 1up ran away with it and value played a much bigger role with many over 8k roids and 45% mining bonuses etc.

The principle reason that never happened was the much higher member-limit on alliances applicable to those rounds.

[jerome]

that's much more easily coutner-able than the high value growth though

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Achilles

However it does grate on me that the whole alliance is completely immune to anything I can do as they play the game under my bash. It's somewhat frustrating :/

I feel I have to point out that I've always opposed the planet-value-based bash limit, partly for this reason.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I feel I have to point out that I've always opposed the planet-value-based bash limit, partly for this reason.

I discussed this with someone who felt there should be an 'opt in/opt out' for the bash limit. I think a viral flag would be a good way to do it.

Initially everyone is protected. If you attack someone who can't attack you back, you're flagged as 'open' for 72 ticks. During this period anyone can attack you, despite bashlimit. However, anyone who would normally be unable to attack you is flagged for 72 ticks if they do.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Banned

I discussed this with someone who felt there should be an 'opt in/opt out' for the bash limit. I think a viral flag would be a good way to do it.

Initially everyone is protected. If you attack someone who can't attack you back, you're flagged as 'open' for 72 ticks. During this period anyone can attack you, despite bashlimit. However, anyone who would normally be unable to attack you is flagged for 72 ticks if they do.

Wouldn't that make XPwh0res open for pwning by highvalue-players 24/7?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Wouldn't that make XPwh0res open for pwning by highvalue-players 24/7?

Not necessarily. You'd need to attack someone 2.5x your value to open up the bashlimit for your planet.

[ComradeRob]

I was thinking more of limiting fleet values - so you can only send a fleet of, say, 200k value at a 200k value planet (and only one fleet per tick).

[furball]

Then you're putting an end to fleet-catches and most wars.


Is that your aim?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by furball

Then you're putting an end to fleet-catches and most wars.


Is that your aim?

Multiple planets could launch, obviously.

[cypher]

yes that'll be nice.. seeing as fleetslots are limited anyways with 55 player alliances... then surely the small fleets will be nice if it requires 40 fleets to do a fleetcatch, however it takes 4 to defend...

[furball]

You'd hope so, although with some of the suggestions these days nothing will suprise me. That's not aimed at Rob though, he's got something between his ears unlike half the people in PA .

But it would still be rather restrictive on fleet-catching.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by cypher

yes that'll be nice.. seeing as fleetslots are limited anyways with 55 player alliances... then surely the small fleets will be nice if it requires 40 fleets to do a fleetcatch, however it takes 4 to defend...

Who the hell fleet-catches a 200k value player

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by cypher

yes that'll be nice.. seeing as fleetslots are limited anyways with 55 player alliances... then surely the small fleets will be nice if it requires 40 fleets to do a fleetcatch, however it takes 4 to defend...

At the moment, the biggest planet that can hit a 200k value planet is a 500k value planet. Let's assume that the 500k guy has 50k score in resources (2.5mil of each), 75k in roids (375 roids) and another 75k in constructions (50 constructions, hardly a huge amount). He has a remaining fleet of 300k value.

When fleet-catching you generally want to send as few classes as possible - if you can do it with just FI, you will. If not, then you'd prefer FI/CO, or FI/CO/FR, worst case is really FI/CO/FR/DE. If this guy has 1/3 of his fleet in CR/BS then his remaining fleet is 200k FI/CO/FR/DE... So it doesn't require any more fleets than it currently would.

The key here is that a 1.5mil guy could also send 200k fleet too. 400k fleet really should be enough to fleet-catch a 200k planet value guy, shouldn't it?

The 'only send a fleet equal to your target's' value thing was an off-the-cuff example - it could be 1.5 x your target's value, which would make fleet-catches even easier - perhaps too easy?

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

At the moment, the biggest planet that can hit a 200k value planet is a 500k value planet. Let's assume that the 500k guy has 50k score in resources (2.5mil of each), 75k in roids (375 roids) and another 75k in constructions (50 constructions, hardly a huge amount). He has a remaining fleet of 300k value.

When fleet-catching you generally want to send as few classes as possible - if you can do it with just FI, you will. If not, then you'd prefer FI/CO, or FI/CO/FR, worst case is really FI/CO/FR/DE. If this guy has 1/3 of his fleet in CR/BS then his remaining fleet is 200k FI/CO/FR/DE... So it doesn't require any more fleets than it currently would.

The key here is that a 1.5mil guy could also send 200k fleet too. 400k fleet really should be enough to fleet-catch a 200k planet value guy, shouldn't it?

The 'only send a fleet equal to your target's' value thing was an off-the-cuff example - it could be 1.5 x your target's value, which would make fleet-catches even easier - perhaps too easy?

Unfortunately, this comes crashing down when you take into account that fleet catches this round contain a wild array of classes (or at least seem too)

[ComradeRob]

Hardly "crashing down". My example had 4 ship classes, and if you can't do a fleet-catch with 4 ship classes then you have no place attempting a fleet-catch at all.

[Spritfire]

ComradeRob its much harder to def if you use all fleet classes and many many many ships

With only 1 ship class, its easy to defend. Even tho its possible to do the fleet catch with 1 ship class

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Spritfire

ComradeRob its much harder to def if you use all fleet classes and many many many ships

Gee, I never thought that it's harder to defend against an attack with more ships in

Originally Posted by Spritfire

With only 1 ship class, its easy to defend. Even tho its possible to do the fleet catch with 1 ship class

Imagine you're trying to catch a returning DE fleet. Your objective here is twofold:
1) use enough ships to kill the entire returning fleet
2) lose as few ships as possible doing so

Let's also assume that you decide to do the catch using just CO. You send 3mil value worth of CO to attack, with the Fireblades and Vipers killing the DE - the remaining CO consists of Gryphons to deter CO def and Arrows to deter FI def.

Your opponent then has to gather as much anti-CO as possible. Only anti-CO will do. The question is simply: does the alliance have enough anti-CO available that tick to cover the attack?

If the fleet-catch was split between FI/CO/FR/DE, it would be much less likely to succeed because the total sum of useful defence available would be much larger. A split-class attack also suffers because the damage sustained might be unevenly split between attackers - if the def is mostly anti-FR, then all of the attackers who sent FR will get slaughtered. But if the (for example) recluses pull, then the defending arrows start firing and that kills the FI attackers... etc.

Of course, there is the general point that if sending 4 classes means you send 4 times as much value, it will be harder to defend against. But then you've just committed 4 times as many ships which won't be available for def/attack later on.

To get back to the point, I think you've missed the fact that my suggestion would make fleet-catches much easier by allowing big players to launch at planets currently below their bash limits. It would just prevent them from sending their whole fleet, thus preventing 'bashing' as a regular tactic. It would allow big players to counter-attack small people, or to fight a war against XP whores. But it would not allow them to use their entire fleet against someone far smaller than them.

[Achilles]

I'm not certain that XP whores should receive any protection at all since they can clearly outscore larger planets quite easily.

Originally Posted by ComradRob

At the moment, the biggest planet that can hit a 200k value planet is a 500k value planet. Let's assume that the 500k guy has 50k score in resources (2.5mil of each), 75k in roids (375 roids) and another 75k in constructions (50 constructions, hardly a huge amount). He has a remaining fleet of 300k value.

As it is currently XP whores don't need to build balanced fleets so the %'s shown in your example are inaccurate in many cases. The planet in question above (lets say he is Cat) is as (if not more) likely to have 250k of his fleet value in CR with 200k of those CR as Tulas.

So lets say this equates to 600 Tulas with the ability to build to build 200 more. 800 Tarantula stuns 4750 Ghost (428k fleetvalue.) That's gonna be a pretty shitpoor fleetcatch if all I can send is 500k.

The real issue here is that the player have taken the stats and exploited them because the xp system rewards unbalanced fleets. In this case the building of defence ships becomes an anchor to score gain yet offers 0 protection from people who will spend 90% of their fleet on 1 ship type.

In effect smaller planets are currently allowed to bash bigger planets with no fear of reprisal of any kind. This is a joke. Every day I see another few value planets laid low, their roids gone and their fleets caught, often by co-incidence. Every day the pressure increases on the remaining value planets as the target list of the moderate value xp whore (600-800k) decreases in its numerical size. Where last week I was seeing 2-3 planets per wave I am now seeing 5.

It may be funny, I sure laugh about it a lot, but in effect I am being bullied by an unruly mob of semi-active 3 fleeters and the rules as they stand are punishing me for doing what the game description says:

Originally Posted by planetarion.com

Every participant in Planetarion controls his own planet, develop technology, and construct vast fleets to attack other planets with. Resources to fund this is mined from asteroids orbiting around your planet, so each asteroid you steal from your enemy will allow you to increase your fleet even more, likewise losing asteroids will make it harder to refill your ranks.

Bollocks. Plain and simple, pure ****ing bollocks.

I want my money back.

[bwtmc]

Apart from the "Resources to fund this is" (should be "are"!) error I really don't see anything wrong with that. I'm taking "refill your ranks" to be referring to rebuilding ships, if it means retain/gain ranks in the universe it sure doesn't sound like it

Spritfire, we had a lot of that last round in eXilition (As were were constantly fleetcaught by TGV Angels and NewDawn). Several ship classes all piling in to reinforce what was normally a BS/CR based primary wave.

The result was generally bad for the attackers as it was very easy to make the attack messy. The defenders can begin to send a tick in advance taking advantage of their larger ships vs fi/co/fr/de and of course they get salvage bonuses and thus can risk rather a lot more.

Sometimes it's a good idea to put in two classes, or add in a class you're particularly heavy on. More often than not you're more likely to be successful if you don't shove everything in, it's also a lot more reliable assuming you're trying to win. 4+ classes tends to lead to messy suicides as it all gets a bit out of control.

[Gate]

XP for holding roids.

Roids/100 = score in XP per tick.

Though I much prefer cutting down effectiveness of XP whoring :/

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Gate

XP for holding roids.

Roids/100 = score in XP per tick.

Though I much prefer cutting down effectiveness of XP whoring :/

One could replace XP gained for capping roids with something like this.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Achilles

As it is currently XP whores don't need to build balanced fleets so the %'s shown in your example are inaccurate in many cases. The planet in question above (lets say he is Cat) is as (if not more) likely to have 250k of his fleet value in CR with 200k of those CR as Tulas.

So lets say this equates to 600 Tulas with the ability to build to build 200 more. 800 Tarantula stuns 4750 Ghost (428k fleetvalue.) That's gonna be a pretty shitpoor fleetcatch if all I can send is 500k.

You'd be a shitpoor BC if you tried to fleet-catch a Tula fleet with Ghosts. The stats are not designed to cater for idiots. (I'm not suggesting that you are an idiot, but that anyone following that example would be).

Originally Posted by Achilles

The real issue here is that the player have taken the stats and exploited them because the xp system rewards unbalanced fleets. In this case the building of defence ships becomes an anchor to score gain yet offers 0 protection from people who will spend 90% of their fleet on 1 ship type.

Unbalanced fleets is not exploitation. A BP would also be 'exploiting the stats' if they each built only anti-2-class and cross-deffed in-gal, but I can't see any good argument for stopping people from doing that.

When I was 1up, Sid would often order/encourage people to focus their defence fleets, having one good anti-something fleet rather than a wide selection of useless fleets. People never really did it properly. Perhaps they should.

Originally Posted by Achilles

In effect smaller planets are currently allowed to bash bigger planets with no fear of reprisal of any kind. This is a joke.

My definition of bashing involves actually killing stuff. A fleet small enough to get max XP isn't going to kill much.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Every day I see another few value planets laid low, their roids gone and their fleets caught, often by co-incidence. Every day the pressure increases on the remaining value planets as the target list of the moderate value xp whore (600-800k) decreases in its numerical size. Where last week I was seeing 2-3 planets per wave I am now seeing 5.

That happens in every round once the ratio of inactive to active players starts to change. It's only worth attacking people who have roids, and only those still attacking actively have roids. Early on, everyone is attacking actively. By now, they're not. This is not new and has nothing to do with XP.

Before bash limits were introduced, people were complaining about big players just smash-n-grabbing any remaining active players who dared bother to keep roiding without having a huge fleet, big alliance or fortress galaxy.

I should point out that I didn't really agree with those complaints, and I don't really agree with yours either. But I recognise that there's a legitimate point of view behind both. I'd like to see a system that allows XP whores to be hit (removing the planet-value bash limit) without allowing routine solo bashing (introducing a fleet-value bash limit).

Originally Posted by Achilles

It may be funny, I sure laugh about it a lot, but in effect I am being bullied by an unruly mob of semi-active 3 fleeters and the rules as they stand are punishing me for doing what the game description says

I agree that there is a need for a fix. I don't think there's a magic bullet though.

Originally Posted by Gate

XP for holding roids.

Roids/100 = score in XP per tick.

XP for getting as many NAPs as possible?

[lokken]

A mind-numbingly simple way of getting rid of this problem is get rid of the bashlimit for top 100 planets.

[furball]

The mind-numbingly obvious way of getting rid of this problem is to return to stats more like those of Rounds 13 and 14 (ignoring the stealing cock-ups). We didn't see anyone moaning about XP whores then.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by lokken

A mind-numbingly simple way of getting rid of this problem is get rid of the bashlimit for top 100 planets.

yeah. why not

[shibaMac]

Another way to fix this would be to change the amount of score each XP is worth. This would allow for a fair bit of fine tuning. 60 score is too high in my opinion, and changes the game too far away from being value based.

It comes down to what kind of game Planetarion is supposed to be. Next round, barring major changes to the stats, I would expect to see an awful lot of large alliances going XP whoring. This would be a very fundamental change, and might not be for the best.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by lokken

A mind-numbingly simple way of getting rid of this problem is get rid of the bashlimit for top 100 planets.

I don't see how it would.

At the moment the high ranked XP whores don't care if they get roided (they welcome it in some ways, as it lowers their value). And their fleets are so small that if they get fleetcaught, they can build them back within a day or so.

So it wouldn't change much really - just set them back for a day or so. An alliance would have to concentrate on them pretty much every day for 1-2 weeks to push their rank far down enough.

[furball]

Originally Posted by shibaMac

It comes down to what kind of game Planetarion is supposed to be. Next round, barring major changes to the stats, I would expect to see an awful lot of large alliances going XP whoring. This would be a very fundamental change, and might not be for the best.

It doesn't even need major changes to the stats. It's relatively simply to change the shape of the stats, although balancing is a bitch. I hardly think that PA-Team will maintain the status quo.

[Spritfire]

I just kinda wonder how they can manage to land anything with that small fleets ?

[Buddah]

remove xp eod

[Stoom]

Originally Posted by Spritfire

I just kinda wonder how they can manage to land anything with that small fleets ?

Attack with Fr against Ter with no syren/gryph, Attack with Fi against Ter, Attack with Bs against Xan/Zik with no anti bs etc. Pretty easy actually.

[The_Fish]

me and a gal basically xp farm each other every day. We both know its unlikely the other will get def, and every day we both end up way ahead on xp.

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

me and a gal basically xp farm each other every day. We both know its unlikely the other will get def, and every day we both end up way ahead on xp.

That's refered to as "cheating." See EULA about excessive farming of another person for XP.

-NitinA

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

me and a gal basically xp farm each other every day. We both know its unlikely the other will get def, and every day we both end up way ahead on xp.

Which one of you has lower value? Whichever it is I think he's getting a better "deal".

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by NitinA

That's refered to as "cheating." See EULA about excessive farming of another person for XP.

-NitinA

XP whores generally attack easy roid targets. It is not cheating to attack someone that you expect to roid, and considering the way both DLR and Ascendancy play, it's pretty obvious roids will be easy to come by.

If that is cheating, XP whores need to be outlawed too.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Which one of you has lower value? Whichever it is I think he's getting a better "deal".

I have quite large value, so they get better xp/roid, but i seem to cap more roids than them, so it evens out pretty much.

[ComradeRob]

It's only cheating if there's an agreement between the players involved.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I have quite large value, so they get better xp/roid, but i seem to cap more roids than them, so it evens out pretty much.

Does the other guy not build enough pods or something

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

It's only cheating if there's an agreement between the players involved.

Obviously, I've frequently asked my galaxy not to defend me when I needed to lose roids to drop value this round. I think I had one specific planet roid me three times when I needed to drop value. Seeing as this was a) benefitting him b) benefitting me and c) after the first two times he knew I probably wasn't getting defence it's very similar to what the fish and player x are doing. Except they know each other's irc nicks!