Make the Bash Limit work in both directions

[Synthetic_Sid]

I've been in favour of this ever since bash limits were first introduced: maybe the climate is such now that this can be considered anew.

The fundamental principle behind any change should be that if Planet A can attack Planet B then Planet B and/or his similar-sized friends are allowed to attack Planet A back. I would implement it as follows:

Every planet has a "bash-limit" flag which is initially set to "On", but which they may at any time they choose turn to "Off".

When your flag is "On" you may only attack planets between 40% of your own value and 250% of your own value.
When your flag is "Off" you may attack ANY planet with value greater than 40% of your own and ANY planet at all whose flag is also set to "Off".

I would be open to the idea that you could change to your flag back from "Off" to "On" with a 72 tick activation period PROVIDED that information showed up in a planet scan of you.

[Robsch]

why dont you just say "value ftw"?

the helpless big value players clearly must be protected from those newbs bashing them

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Robsch

why dont you just say "value ftw"?

the helpless big value players clearly must be protected from those newbs bashing them

I think the main issue is the 'XP whores' as we are seeing this round.

It's just not fun when you can't attack 7 out of the top 10. And I myself am not even close to T100 valuewise.

Since it's an optional protection, it's not exactly trying to open everyone up for a bashing. It's just to allow people to hit their attackers. Being hit by planets you can't touch back can be a huge annoyance. My own suggestion was just open up the retals to the planet that's hit (Rather than everyone), but that got swatted down with the argument that you do not need to retaliate yourself, simply get your mates who can hit the XP whores to do it for you.

Unfortunately, it appears I don't have any mates who are small enough, and have the ships to fleetcatch current XP whores. So I suppose I'll just have to watch them outscore me day after day then.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I've been in favour of this ever since bash limits were first introduced: maybe the climate is such now that this can be considered anew.

This way is good, though I'd consider making it automated and viral:

A player under the bashlimit can always attack someone over the bashlimit, but when they do, they're flagged as Open. Anyone attacking this player that could normally not do so is then also flagged as Open. The Open flag 'fades' after 72 ticks and I agree it should be visible somehow (planetscan sounds fine).

[Robsch]

and you surely want someone who cov-ops a high value planet also be open for retal, dont you?

[Kjeldoran]

It should enable the fact that you can attack back whoever is attacking you, regardless of his score. Isn't it basic logic to be able to strike back those that attacked you?

[Robsch]

how about this: you should be able to attack anyone who has a higher rank than you, even if he is under your bash-limit. thats the problem there, aint it?
why not have some newbs some fun and a free shot at the high value planets? Those who are allready on top of ranking dont deserve that protection any more of course.

[furball]

Not really, Kjeldoran, and I can't say I'm in favour of this idea.

At the moment we see people hitting big Ziks to take roids with relative comfort. The consequence of this would be Ziks mass-fleetcatching their attacker with large numbers of steal ships. I can't see how this would be positive for the game.

On the general topic, don't make it 72 hours, that's far far too long. 24 is better. By making it 72, any alliance that raids that planet's galaxy will have open season on that planet - bashing, essentially - all in return for just one attack.

Originally Posted by Gate

I think the main issue is the 'XP whores' as we are seeing this round.

It's just not fun when you can't attack 7 out of the top 10. And I myself am not even close to T100 valuewise.

So why don't you hit T100 value players with your incredibly strong Terran fleet? I'm fairly sure you can get 1.6+ bravery factor in XP from these people.

We all know that the round is 'broken' due to the power of the Terran stats in XP whoring. The question is: why are you trying to get back at the XP whores when there's value-whores (the big Xans/Ziks) you can hit for big XP yourself? XP whores don't touch these guys.

Originally Posted by Gate

Unfortunately, it appears I don't have any mates who are small enough, and have the ships to fleetcatch current XP whores. So I suppose I'll just have to watch them outscore me day after day then.

Then look outside of ND/DLR.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by furball

So why don't you hit T100 value players with your incredibly strong Terran fleet? I'm fairly sure you can get 1.6+ bravery factor in XP from these people.

I have a reasonable amount of XP. But the larger planets tend to be xands who are now getting pretty untouchable with huge amounts of anti DE/BS and tens of millions of stocked resources. At my value, you can't get good XP easily. Xands cut my fleet to shreds, caths have enough widows to force me to send all my BS (or enough roach to make me send all my DE), and if they're large enough to get good XP from, they generally sap a huge amount of hteir ally's defence anyway. There are only a handful of terrans larger than me, and again, it's another high risk situation, whilst ziks are stealing & buildings more and more effective defence ships. If I wanted to get XP, I would be better getting most of my structures killed, and suiciding everything except for pods, but I find that a boring way of playing PA.

And as a personal preference, I don't like people being immune to losing ranks which is, essentially, what current XP whores are.

Originally Posted by furball

Then look outside of ND/DLR.

Who outside of there would be friendly enough to me to make the effort of fleetcatching an XP whore if I asked them to?

[Robsch]

Originally Posted by Gate

Who outside of there would be friendly enough to me to make the effort of fleetcatching an XP whore if I asked them to?

if you offer them some protection in return

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by furball

Not really, Kjeldoran, and I can't say I'm in favour of this idea.

At the moment we see people hitting big Ziks to take roids with relative comfort. The consequence of this would be Ziks mass-fleetcatching their attacker with large numbers of steal ships. I can't see how this would be positive for the game.

Well ... it takes no genious to flee your fleet so he can't catch yours ...

Part of the skills in this game involve being able to make a balanced fleet and keep that fleet alive.

[ComradeRob]

I can't see it making much difference, though that's probably an argument for giving it a try - I don't see it doing much harm.

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by furball

The consequence of this would be Ziks mass-fleetcatching their attacker with large numbers of steal ships.

Finally the term 'bravery factor' lives up to its name...

[furball]

Originally Posted by Gate

I have a reasonable amount of XP. But the larger planets tend to be xands who are now getting pretty untouchable with huge amounts of anti DE/BS and tens of millions of stocked resources. At my value, you can't get good XP easily. Xands cut my fleet to shreds, caths have enough widows to force me to send all my BS (or enough roach to make me send all my DE), and if they're large enough to get good XP from, they generally sap a huge amount of hteir ally's defence anyway. There are only a handful of terrans larger than me, and again, it's another high risk situation, whilst ziks are stealing & buildings more and more effective defence ships. If I wanted to get XP, I would be better getting most of my structures killed, and suiciding everything except for pods, but I find that a boring way of playing PA.

And as a personal preference, I don't like people being immune to losing ranks which is, essentially, what current XP whores are.

All you have to do is to stop them successfully roiding. Obviously I'm not talking about you in person.

For example, if an XP whore attacks a member of your alliance, don't cover it with Clippers. When they're only sending pods at a Zik planet, you know they're going to be suiciding.

An XP whore is dependant on continually roiding successfully. For the last 3 days, I wasn't able to land and consequentially dropped about 100 ranks (~300th->~400th)

Originally Posted by Gate

Who outside of there would be friendly enough to me to make the effort of fleetcatching an XP whore if I asked them to?

Surely you're not serious. Robsch is correct regarding protection, and there are many other ways to get smaller alliances on your side.

[The Real Arfy]

While I too have wanted this implemented since the beginning of time, it still wouldn't help. Even if 'we' reduced the #1 planet to 0 value, he would still be #1.

The whole point isn't to be able to hit back at your attackers for roids or XP (probably gives neither anyway) its to take them down, which simply cannot be done.

I still say implement it though.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Well ... it takes no genious to flee your fleet so he can't catch yours ...

Part of the skills in this game involve being able to make a balanced fleet and keep that fleet alive.

What I meant was that they fleet-catch your fleet as it returns from their planet. Or any time it returns from a planet and you can't alter that eta.

[furball]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I can't see it making much difference, though that's probably an argument for giving it a try - I don't see it doing much harm.

What about the aforementioned problem with Ziks 'farming' ships from returning fleets? You can't expect everyone to jgp themselves every time they land an attack.

[Robsch]

thats truely a problem about fleetcatching - a possibility could be to be able to tell your fleet to delay their return for 1 or 2 ticks but you should have to tell them before they launch.

[furball]

The problem there is the logical question of 'where' they are while delayed. The obvious answers are either at the planet itself (but what about defence arriving in subsequent ticks, or the vissitudes of space (but this doesn't really work either).

Moreover, there's still nothing in that to stop a fleetcatch using lower class ETAs than the returning fleet, e.g. mass DE against a CR fleet.

[x-dANGEr]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but doesn't basing the bash limit on score solve the problem? That simply means, that if their is someone above your rank in score, you can attack him, but you can't attack those %40 (Or less) of your score..

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by furball

At the moment we see people hitting big Ziks to take roids with relative comfort. The consequence of this would be Ziks mass-fleetcatching their attacker with large numbers of steal ships. I can't see how this would be positive for the game.

Attacking someone of higher value than yourself gives very high xp. The justification for this is that it's "brave" - yet as you acknowledge yourself it's currently pretty much risk-free. It's ludicrous that the best way of gaining score at present is the one with the lowest risk to it.

What's your justification for allowing Planet A to attack planet B without planet B being able to retal?

I DON'T believe this change would solve the "problem" (if such it is) of xp-whoring - nor have I ever claimed that it would. I just intensely dislike the concept in a "war-game" that you're unable to retaliate on your attackers.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by furball

What about the aforementioned problem with Ziks 'farming' ships from returning fleets? You can't expect everyone to jgp themselves every time they land an attack.

People who want to be safe from being fleet-caught by bigger attackers just need to stay away from attacking players over 250% of their own value - then noone new would be able to attack them. Rewarding "bravery" by smaller planets is fine - but at least make sure there IS some realy risk involved, else where IS the bravery?

Currently it's actually more brave to attack sometimes 2* your value than someone 3* your value.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Attacking someone of higher value than yourself gives very high xp. The justification for this is that it's "brave" - yet as you acknowledge yourself it's currently pretty much risk-free. It's ludicrous that the best way of gaining score at present is the one with the lowest risk to it.

Well, it's still even less risky to attack someone your own value (in the context of my own planet, someone with 200 pirates/gryphons instead of 500). It is still braver to attack someone bigger, since it takes less to cover your own attack.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

What's your justification for allowing Planet A to attack planet B without planet B being able to retal?

The aforementioned bashing implications. I don't see a real reason for people retalling their specific attackers, not one that I assign much value to. I accept that it's frustrating to be roided by someone smaller than you, but:

1) Get someone smaller in your alliance to retal AND
2) Get roids back from someone else (a different attacker on your alliance).

Alliances that have constantly updating retal lists (whether automatically or manually) always do better than those that don't. It becomes more costly to attack them, for instance - because of the problem of retals. No-one likes being retalled, especially in a fleetcatch.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I DON'T believe this change would solve the "problem" (if such it is) of xp-whoring - nor have I ever claimed that it would. I just intensely dislike the concept in a "war-game" that you're unable to retaliate on your attackers.

Not a problem, I've tried to treat it as an ordinary suggestion at all times anyway. Unfortunatly in the context of the game at present, almost every suggestion that appears is XP-related.

Again I'll state my views, and concede my personal bias (I'm an XP whore). I believe that the 'problem' of mass XP whoring this round has been been both caused and exacerbated by a combination of factors unrelated to the concept of XP itself:

1. A free round means that more people play casually (inactively). The best strategy for an inactive planet is to XP-whore, since it requires the least activity (note: activity, not skill) out of the strategies in playing Planetarion.
2. The stats this round are incredibly biased towards Terran XP whoring, given the lack of a 0-loss kill ship against BS and the strength of Terran armour. Moreover, Ziks are especially weak against both BS and DE, possessing no kill ships against either class.

With consideration to being able to retal your own attackers, I think it's a great idea in theory but would only cause misery in practice. I'd tell every Zik I know to just fleetcatch small planets since it's so difficult to defend against this sort of thing. If I didn't, I'd only be doing a disservice to them since everyone else would be doing it.

Furthermore, this gives greater power to the top value players (let's just assume they'll be the top players in the future) and make them unassailable by lesser forces (such as REVOLT attempts by the smaller alliances). I can foresee all types of carnage if they tried something like this. For the sake of maintaining the smaller disparity between small and big alliances that we have at present, I'd oppose this.

[Robsch]

"the empire rules through fear" - no, none of that shall be allowed to happen - Id rather have it the other way round: why not give many players attacking or defending against just one a % increase in firepower if all of that players are in value below the attacker

[furball]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

People who want to be safe from being fleet-caught by bigger attackers just need to stay away from attacking players over 250% of their own value - then noone new would be able to attack them. Rewarding "bravery" by smaller planets is fine - but at least make sure there IS some realy risk involved, else where IS the bravery?

There is bravery, it's just indirect - in that it takes less to cover an attack on a bigger player, assuming generic fleet compositions. There's less risk (and so less bravery) in attacking a player your own size.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Currently it's actually more brave to attack sometimes 2* your value than someone 3* your value.

Sorry, you'll have to explain how that works.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Robsch

"the empire rules through fear" - no, none of that shall be allowed to happen - Id rather have it the other way round: why not give many players attacking or defending against just one a % increase in firepower if all of that players are in value below the attacker

Any changes in shipstats are a bad idea, since it removes all certainty from the game. What if the attacker/defender's value changes while the attack fleet was on its way?

[Robsch]

Originally Posted by furball

Any changes in shipstats are a bad idea, since it removes all certainty from the game. What if the attacker/defender's value changes while the attack fleet was on its way?

you could make it, that these things are checked at launchtime - if every attacker (defender) has lower value than the attacked planet (attacker) the time he launches the bonus is given - if an attack/defense has bonus should be shown on gal-screen, and of course this bonus should be included in battle-calcs as well.

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by furball

Sorry, you'll have to explain how that works.

I guess its due to the fact that hitting someone 2x your value, you may be retaliated against. Hitting someone 3x your value, you cannot be retaliated.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by furball

There is bravery, it's just indirect - in that it takes less to cover an attack on a bigger player, assuming generic fleet compositions. There's less risk (and so less bravery) in attacking a player your own size.

I don't see how it takes less defence to cover 50 ziz attacking a 2 mill value zik than it does to cover 50 ziz attacking a 1 mill value zik. If you're going to assume "generic fleet compositions" then I suggest you choose compositions that match the reality - i.e. targets with no (or next to no) killers/emping ships which target your pods.

I appreciate you love a situation where you can attack planets knowing the rules say "It would be unfair and illegal for my target to attack me back". I still fail to see any justification for it other than "Please puncish players who build/maintain fleets by allowing them to be attacked with impunity".

My proposal isn't about allowing big players to bully small ones - it's about ensuring that actions CAN carry meaningful consequences. I suspect PA crew honestly believe that just tampering with how much XP affects score can "roll-back" PA to a situation where alliance wars make sense. If they believe this then they're wrong: the "fear" factor of small planets towards large ones IS an important part in PA - it's one of the factors driving small planets to grow useful defence fleets.

Your reponses and those of others (rightly) concern themselves with the impact my proposal could have on smaller, newer players. But you totally miss the fact that what concerns me ISN'T the smaller,newer players (who in any event could, under my proposal, attack planets 2* their size with no difference to the present). What concerns me is COMPETENT players who have realised that minimising their value increases their score growth while reducing the risk to them - and the effect this has on the game in general (why bother with politics, wars or even tagging up?). The threat of being routinely fleet-caught and killed by larger value players is one of the few things which can introduce any real element of risk into this particular strategy. "XP-whoring" would, of course still be perfectly viable - but there would then be real, significant, risks associated with trying to hit the largest planets.

What Ascendancy achieved this round is just the thin edge of the wedge - it's possible to optimise a low-value tactic even further (and all the time there's pod classes targetted only by stealing ships from ziks the tactic as a whole will work). I won't predict doom and gloom for next round - but if PA team insist on keeping arbitrary (and illogical) one-way restrictions in the game then I, for one, intend to exploit them to the maximum next round.

And if, at the end of next round, I say "I told you so" then don't say you weren't forewarned.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Robsch

you could make it, that these things are checked at launchtime - if every attacker (defender) has lower value than the attacked planet (attacker) the time he launches the bonus is given - if an attack/defense has bonus should be shown on gal-screen, and of course this bonus should be included in battle-calcs as well.

What if their value changes at the time of launch? Or the tick after? This would be a nightmare for DCs.

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

I guess its due to the fact that hitting someone 2x your value, you may be retaliated against. Hitting someone 3x your value, you cannot be retaliated.

That makes some sense. However, I'd argue that the actual number of retals against your own attackers are very low compared to the general number of retals.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by furball

That makes some sense. However, I'd argue that the actual number of retals against your own attackers are very low compared to the general number of retals.

Retaling against someone below 40% of value is impossible - so you shouldn't need to be a genius to realise there's less chance of someone 3* your value retaliating on you than there is of someone 2* your value.

I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree. You believe it's a good thing to allow planets to attack other planets without their target being able to retaliate. I believe it's a bad thing - both because it makes no logical sense and because I believe that in the longer term it removes any incentive to nurture a high-value planet.

PA began as a game where the objective was to build as big a planet (in terms of roids/fleet) as possible. It is now nearing the final stages of becoming a game where the objective is to gain the highest score possible - with the means of gaining score being to exploit the flaws in the game's mechanics as much as possible - predominantly by counter-intuitive measures. Whereas it still poses some intellectual challenge I believe the fun is getting leeched out of the game as the cooperative elements of it disintegrate.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Here's a couple of quick questions - I'm not suggesting anyone post replies, but just consider them.

1. What is the objective in Planetarion? Is the game JUST about maximising score - or is there intended to be some other aim (developing a planet? winning wars?) which score reflects your achievement in?
2. How do specific game mechanics contribute towards encouraging players to strive towards the game's aims?

Sadly, I suspect PA team are entirely unable to answer questions such as this (or the question "what is PA's target market?"). I believe PA development has long-since (maybe even always) been about introducing arbitrary changes to game-play with no overall objective in mind. Rather than aiming to satisfy one market I believe they're trying to minimise the degree to which they piss-off multiple target markets while hoping that somehow they'll stumble on some solution that will draw back the masses.

A saying used in Poker when a bad player gets a very good hand is "Even a blind squirrel sometimes gets the nuts". I see a lot of stumbling around in the dark but no sign of any nuts.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I don't see how it takes less defence to cover 50 ziz attacking a 2 mill value zik than it does to cover 50 ziz attacking a 1 mill value zik. If you're going to assume "generic fleet compositions" then I suggest you choose compositions that match the reality - i.e. targets with no (or next to no) killers/emping ships which target your pods.

I've already agreed that there's a problem with the current round's stats. My point is that it's more likely that the 2 mill zik will have enough stolen anti-DE ships (fireblades, chimeras, wyverns) to cover those 50 ziz. Again we're looking at generic fleet compositions and there's very few large ziks without a good number of stolen ships. This is as opposed to skewed fleet compositions where some ziks have 20k spiders and some only have 2-3k.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I appreciate you love a situation where you can attack planets knowing the rules say "It would be unfair and illegal for my target to attack me back". I still fail to see any justification for it other than "Please puncish players who build/maintain fleets by allowing them to be attacked with impunity".

In fact, I'd say this is a perfectly good justification. If people are going to specialise, then they must prepare to be attacked: this is the consequence of having a more powerful attack fleet. This is why the current #1 non-ridiculous XP whore has lost over 13000 roids this round. I believe I've already addressed the Terran situation. As for my own position, I was the one who admitted my own personal bias.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

My proposal isn't about allowing big players to bully small ones - it's about ensuring that actions CAN carry meaningful consequences. I suspect PA crew honestly believe that just tampering with how much XP affects score can "roll-back" PA to a situation where alliance wars make sense. If they believe this then they're wrong: the "fear" factor of small planets towards large ones IS an important part in PA - it's one of the factors driving small planets to grow useful defence fleets.

I've tested the formula and with adjusted stats, it looks competent. As for how it'll play out next round, I have absolutly no idea.

You speak of 'meaningful consequences', and I suspect that we both know what those are. Any person who attempts to XP whore will get ridiculously pasted fairly early on in the round - but this is only encouragement to XP whore further, since being successfully hurt when attacked hurts a value player far more than a XP player.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Your reponses and those of others (rightly) concern themselves with the impact my proposal could have on smaller, newer players. But you totally miss the fact that what concerns me ISN'T the smaller,newer players (who in any event could, under my proposal, attack planets 2* their size with no difference to the present). What concerns me is COMPETENT players who have realised that minimising their value increases their score growth while reducing the risk to them - and the effect this has on the game in general (why bother with politics, wars or even tagging up?). The threat of being routinely fleet-caught and killed by larger value players is one of the few things which can introduce any real element of risk into this particular strategy. "XP-whoring" would, of course still be perfectly viable - but there would then be real, significant, risks associated with trying to hit the largest planets.

The problem with that is that the current XP whores who aggrieve 1up so much don't hit many 1up planets (at a guess). You're far more likely to find your 400k XP whore attacking a planet belonging to any alliance in ranks 4-16. An XP whore does not need to hit a large value planet, only one about 2x their value - rarely bigger than 1 million value.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

What Ascendancy achieved this round is just the thin edge of the wedge - it's possible to optimise a low-value tactic even further (and all the time there's pod classes targetted only by stealing ships from ziks the tactic as a whole will work). I won't predict doom and gloom for next round - but if PA team insist on keeping arbitrary (and illogical) one-way restrictions in the game then I, for one, intend to exploit them to the maximum next round.

And if, at the end of next round, I say "I told you so" then don't say you weren't forewarned.

The tactic was particularly strong when combined with Terran armour. Nevertheless, there has been a clear problem which I expect to be resolved through improved (not new) ship stats.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Robsch

if you offer them some protection in return

To be that small, they're often an XP whore themselves & don't really benefit from any protection I can offer them

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Robsch

"the empire rules through fear" - no, none of that shall be allowed to happen - Id rather have it the other way round: why not give many players attacking or defending against just one a % increase in firepower if all of that players are in value below the attacker

Why not take your "argument" to its logical extreme - and give everyone a "kill all my ships except pods with no salvage" button. It would truly be a terrible game if there were any advantages at all for actually building a fleet or for your planet (as opposed to your score) doing well.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by furball

I've already agreed that there's a problem with the current round's stats. My point is that it's more likely that the 2 mill zik will have enough stolen anti-DE ships (fireblades, chimeras, wyverns) to cover those 50 ziz. Again we're looking at generic fleet compositions and there's very few large ziks without a good number of stolen ships. This is as opposed to skewed fleet compositions where some ziks have 20k spiders and some only have 2-3k.


In fact, I'd say this is a perfectly good justification. If people are going to specialise, then they must prepare to be attacked: this is the consequence of having a more powerful attack fleet. This is why the current #1 non-ridiculous XP whore has lost over 13000 roids this round. I believe I've already addressed the Terran situation. As for my own position, I was the one who admitted my own personal bias.


I've tested the formula and with adjusted stats, it looks competent. As for how it'll play out next round, I have absolutly no idea.

You speak of 'meaningful consequences', and I suspect that we both know what those are. Any person who attempts to XP whore will get ridiculously pasted fairly early on in the round - but this is only encouragement to XP whore further, since being successfully hurt when attacked hurts a value player far more than a XP player.


The problem with that is that the current XP whores who aggrieve 1up so much don't hit many 1up planets (at a guess). You're far more likely to find your 400k XP whore attacking a planet belonging to any alliance in ranks 4-16. An XP whore does not need to hit a large value planet, only one about 2x their value - rarely bigger than 1 million value.


The tactic was particularly strong when combined with Terran armour. Nevertheless, there has been a clear problem which I expect to be resolved through improved (not new) ship stats.

You're focussing far too much on individual planets. I'm trying to look at what changes are necessary to encourage alliances to tag up, grow in value and engage in wars. If you believe that those things aren't useful or necessary for PA to thrive then there's lno point continuing this discussion - let's just all play trade the roids with no attempt to defend them until the remaining player-base all quit through boredom.

EDIT: your replies focus far too much on this round. No doubt when you tested the new formula you assumed a similar density of vlaue planets to this round - and ignored the likelihood that next round far more planets will be "xp" and hence there'll be a scarcity of targets for value planets to attack even early on. Consider as an extreme example a round where all but 1 planet went xp. Within weeks the sole value planet would have NO targets at all - and so no matter how low the contribution to score from xp was he'd plummet down the ranking unless he suicided his fleet (at which stage he'd become and xp planet who'd had a slow start). The same principle applies when the density of value planets drops below a certain critical mass - as they can only exchange roids between themselves while having some leeched off by xp planets which can't be retaliated. This forces more planets to go xp - or at least reduce their value. And the net effect of this chain reaction is to remove all cooperative elements from game-play (other than coordinated attacks). Simple "tests" where you assume nothing changes except one factor are naive, meaningless and can lead to entirely wrong conclusions.

[Robsch]

I started to like xp - when at first I was very sceptic - cause I realised, it helps getting the fear-factor out of the game. The thread - and made true sometimes as well - "if you do that, ill smash you till you quit the game" doesnt work anymore. Everyone gets permanently bashed by someone and when you loose some fleet you can get over it by looking at the top-planets and saying to yourself: now obviously my current value is just the right one to go for the top 100.

The only problem I see arise from there has to do with some of these top 100 players. If you get up that high in value that you cant attack your opponents before you in ranking, thats not ok and should be changed. On the other hand I would even increase the incentive to attack high value planets by giving some advantage. Either with the fire-power as mentioned above or by not capping xp anymore - you could have basically somewhat lower xp but not capping it for high value planets. - this would lead to mass-attacks that surely give the game a kick - and therefore lead to more coordination and better community as this not being the case is often critisized in combination with xp.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You're focussing far too much on individual planets. I'm trying to look at what changes are necessary to encourage alliances to tag up, grow in value and engage in wars. If you believe that those things aren't useful or necessary for PA to thrive then there's lno point continuing this discussion - let's just all play trade the roids with no attempt to defend them until the remaining player-base all quit through boredom.

EDIT: your replies focus far too much on this round. No doubt when you tested the new formula you assumed a similar density of vlaue planets to this round - and ignored the likelihood that next round far more planets will be "xp" and hence there'll be a scarcity of targets for value planets to attack even early on. Consider as an extreme example a round where all but 1 planet went xp. Within weeks the sole value planet would have NO targets at all - and so no matter how low the contribution to score from xp was he'd plummet down the ranking unless he suicided his fleet (at which stage he'd become and xp planet who'd had a slow start). The same principle applies when the density of value planets drops below a certain critical mass - as they can only exchange roids between themselves while having some leeched off by xp planets which can't be retaliated. This forces more planets to go xp - or at least reduce their value. And the net effect of this chain reaction is to remove all cooperative elements from game-play (other than coordinated attacks). Simple "tests" where you assume nothing changes except one factor are naive, meaningless and can lead to entirely wrong conclusions.

Some fair points. You're correct, I was focussing on the present context in applying your suggestion.

I think that with stats biased against XP whoring, the situation that you envisage is very unlikely to come true. Nevertheless, my arguments do rely on good stats for next round - and sadly this is something I have little influence over. Your principle on the density of value planets seems fairly accurate, but much like Round 14 when everyone went Zik - XP planets may well not be that successful. Personally I'd like to play a value planet this time around.

To re-quote since I think this needs addressing:

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I'm trying to look at what changes are necessary to encourage alliances to tag up, grow in value and engage in wars. If you believe that those things aren't useful or necessary for PA to thrive then there's lno point continuing this discussion - let's just all play trade the roids with no attempt to defend them until the remaining player-base all quit through boredom.

Fine by me. That's what I'd like to see. However, I'm not sure that your proposal is the way to do this.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Robsch

I started to like xp - when at first I was very sceptic - cause I realised, it helps getting the fear-factor out of the game. The thread - and made true sometimes as well - "if you do that, ill smash you till you quit the game" doesnt work anymore. Everyone gets permanently bashed by someone and when you loose some fleet you can get over it by looking at the top-planets and saying to yourself: now obviously my current value is just the right one to go for the top 100.

The only problem I see arise from there has to do with some of these top 100 players. If you get up that high in value that you cant attack your opponents before you in ranking, thats not ok and should be changed. On the other hand I would even increase the incentive to attack high value planets by giving some advantage. Either with the fire-power as mentioned above or by not capping xp anymore - you could have basically somewhat lower xp but not capping it for high value planets. - this would lead to mass-attacks that surely give the game a kick - and therefore lead to more coordination and better community as this not being the case is often critisized in combination with xp.

Re your first paragraph: yes, I agree that to an extent, in theory, xp rpovides an incentive for bashed players to carry on playing. But that's only in theory - plenty of players still quit when they're bashed. If PA were to openly advertise itself as an XP game - and make plain that actually having a fleet were a disadvantage then clearly the full benefits of xp would be realised.

Re your 2nd paragraph: Let me get this straight - not only do you believe planets should be able to attack larger ones without the larger ones being able to retal but they should also receive a bonus to their ship efficiency when doing so? Why don't we just redesign the game so everyone only has 3 ships each and send them at each other all day long. That would totally eliminate any fear factor or bashing - and allow everyone to attack anyone they wanted without needing to actually try to grow their planet at all.

You acknowledge there's a problem with people being unable to attack people above them in the rankings. And your solution? To make it even easier for the xp planet above them to roid them. Pure genius.

[furball]

Wonderful, in composing an earlier reply I missed 2 Sid posts.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree. You believe it's a good thing to allow planets to attack other planets without their target being able to retaliate. I believe it's a bad thing - both because it makes no logical sense and because I believe that in the longer term it removes any incentive to nurture a high-value planet.

I haven't said that.

I believe that the planets being attacked by these XP whores can do better for themselves by attacking elsewhere rather than attacking the XP whore themselves, given the little reward it provides. To this point, I don't believe that players need to retal that XP whore, and thus given the potential for bashing, I oppose your idea in its current form. I note that no-one has yet picked up on my suggestion to change the 72 hour flag to one of 12 or 24 hours, or a flag that only applies to the planet >250% of the attacker's value that was attacked.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

PA began as a game where the objective was to build as big a planet (in terms of roids/fleet) as possible. It is now nearing the final stages of becoming a game where the objective is to gain the highest score possible - with the means of gaining score being to exploit the flaws in the game's mechanics as much as possible - predominantly by counter-intuitive measures. Whereas it still poses some intellectual challenge I believe the fun is getting leeched out of the game as the cooperative elements of it disintegrate.

PA began as a game where players left because their planet was ground into dust by top players looking for easy roids. Most of these top players belonged to the alliances such as Fury, and so we should both appreciate that we saw this time from different perspectives.

After pay-to-play was introduced, players were more likely to stick around (due to their financial interest in playing) but also more likely to not return if they left. For a casual player, the game slowly lost its fun more and more as the rounds progressed.

After PaX, the smaller players have enjoyed themselves more and more. Your alliance has become less important, and your skill has been more important (although actually having an alliance remained important). Evidence for this is demonstrated by the wider swathe of alliances represented in the top 100.

This round the alliance has been less important. I agree that this should change, but I don't believe that fundamental changes are necessarily needed. Every action has a contrasting reaction, and in PA this reaction has usually been another problem caused by the fixing of the earlier one. I prefer to tweak the situation rather than make whole-scale changes, a nuance that much of the community fails to appreciate.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Sadly, I suspect PA team are entirely unable to answer questions such as this (or the question "what is PA's target market?"). I believe PA development has long-since (maybe even always) been about introducing arbitrary changes to game-play with no overall objective in mind. Rather than aiming to satisfy one market I believe they're trying to minimise the degree to which they piss-off multiple target markets while hoping that somehow they'll stumble on some solution that will draw back the masses.

A saying used in Poker when a bad player gets a very good hand is "Even a blind squirrel sometimes gets the nuts". I see a lot of stumbling around in the dark but no sign of any nuts.

For the last god knows how long, I've seen no ambition or drive from Jolt. Without this, I don't think that PA-Team (over-stretched and under-valued) is able to answer those questions.

To draw back the masses, there needs to be some sort of financial committment from Jolt where consecutive free rounds are run, in conjunction with mass publicity across the internet. I'm certain that under current administration, this will never ever happen.

And that's a nice saying, although at my level of ability I sense that it applies to me.

[Robsch]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You acknowledge there's a problem with people being unable to attack people above them in the rankings. And your solution? To make it even easier for the xp planet above them to roid them. Pure genius.

I said, let it be possible for everyone no matter about the bash-limit, to attack people before them in ranking, and on the other side make it easier to attack big planets - as its now xp-whores cant targettet bye big value planets, but also xp-whores dont target big value planets cause of the too high gap in ships, its not worth it for them. So give both the possibility and an incentive to attack each other - thats what I mean

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

1. What is the objective in Planetarion? Is the game JUST about maximising score - or is there intended to be some other aim (developing a planet? winning wars?) which score reflects your achievement in?
2. How do specific game mechanics contribute towards encouraging players to strive towards the game's aims?

I am only going to answer the first one: The final rankings are just about maximising score, thus the objective in Planetarion certainly is just to maximise your score.

These are very good questions and show exactly the main problem Planetarion is suffering from since the end of round 5. It was a fairly simple game back in those which provided enough substance for people to play it for free and even try its first p2p round.
However, it's also fairly repetitive and there is hardly any challenge left in this game, it's always about who grows his score fastest and singles out a handful of final competitors within the first 4 weeks while the rest already falls behind. Also, to be able to grow a lot and keep that growth you need to be extremely active and can stop a lot of social life activities (except with xp nowadays).
Over the time, as players left, nobody dared to revamp the game concept and people kept on serving a shrinking market, introducing "new features" without thinking about how the game should develop. In the long term there are only two options to keep the game alive: the game allows complexitiy in terms of allowing several ways to succeed, which finally means that the target market will change. On the other hand stick to the original gameplay and get rid off balast which alienated the traditional way of playing the game, or change it in appropriate ways, which means the people running the game should start comforting themselves with the thought that the target market will stay relatively small compared to earlier rounds.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Heartless

On the other hand stick to the original gameplay and get rid off balast which alienated the traditional way of playing the game, or change it in appropriate ways, which means the people running the game should start comforting themselves with the thought that the target market will stay relatively small compared to earlier rounds.

I believe every alliance HC has already realised and accepted the fact that we will never see a memberbase like in the earlier rounds. I sure have and tbh, I'm not mourning about it either really.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

A very well thought-out and perfectly expressed idea.

I'm not too sure if you're aiming this suggestion at combatting xp whores but I'd just like to point out that this would probably only have affected at most two or three of my targets this round and certainly, on its own, would not prevent xp whoring being as potentially successful next round.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not too sure if you're aiming this suggestion at combatting xp whores but I'd just like to point out that this would probably only have affected at most two or three of my targets this round and certainly, on its own, would not prevent xp whoring being as potentially successful next round.

If you read the rest of the thread you'll see that it's not specifically targetted at combating XP players.

[JonnyBGood]

I did read the rest of the thread and most people seem to be concentrating on this as a necessary solution to the "xp-whore problem".

[robban1]

the main problem as i see it is that its absolutly *no* gain retalling a xp whore, you will actually loose score as the gain there is slim to non and the fleetspot could be used to a real target.

xpwhores as a concept is just a bunch of parasites with no DDT around to cure it

there should be a way to kick the xp out of the guys, maybe a coop or something

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by robban1

there should be a way to kick the xp out of the guys

I wish I could kick the xp out of you

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by robban1

xpwhores as a concept is just a bunch of parasites with no DDT around to cure it

Watch your bum, we're infecting you next!

[Travler]

I like this Idea but instead of making the attacking planet open to everyone for 72 hours it should just be the planet that got attacked. Kinda like a "Mono a Mono" situation.