Planetarion Forums

Smudge · 21 Nov 2005, 13:18

There has been some discussion of bashing on the forums and of IRC so a crazy idea I had in a lecture just now was to have a sliding-scale roid cap. At the moment the cap is set to 25%, but due to bashing maybe this could be changed. To work out the cap limit would take the value of each of the planets and also take into account the amount of roids there. The upper limit would raise to around 30% but the lower limit would be around 10%, to deter bashing.

Feel free to discuss

noah02 · 21 Nov 2005, 13:53

Only problem with that I can see is that The harder you work for roids the more you are eventually going to loose.
I know when i would cap roids say 300 roids and then had 2k roids I would get roided and lose 500 roids on the off and i know thats a good kick in the nuts tbh and then for me to gain only 15% roids or whatever you propose just because I am the number 1 player just seems unfair.

I think I know where you are coming from though and i kinda agree but would it not be better to do it score based for better starts like its only 15% roid cap ratio till reaching 250k score then 20% till 500k score then good old traditional 25% once 1m is reached and thats maximum or something like that.

Remy · 21 Nov 2005, 14:43

Older rounds were base on planet scores and fleet value. This was a great system.

wakey · 21 Nov 2005, 14:58

I personally think Smudges one is best, planet value not only makes bashing smaller value planets less attractive but it makes being and staying at the top tougher which imho isnt a bad thing. It often seems that the top players pull away at an alarming rate and restricting their growth would potentailly make the whole game a little more competative

noah02 · 21 Nov 2005, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakey

I personally think Smudges one is best, planet value not only makes bashing smaller value planets less attractive but it makes being and staying at the top tougher which imho isnt a bad thing. It often seems that the top players pull away at an alarming rate and restricting their growth would potentailly make the whole game a little more competative

There number 1 mostly because there hard to touch.
Anyone else trying to catch up to them gonna find it hard because they losing 30% of there roids to everyone below them because they aint in the number 1 alliance so they going to struggle a lot harder to close the gap.

You get good xp for capping more roids but XP whores are gonna love it specially keeping a nice low roid and value.

We cant change the top end it would de stablise it to much.

We need to concentrate on the bottom half more than the top half.

Appocomaster · 21 Nov 2005, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smudge

There has been some discussion of bashing on the forums and of IRC so a crazy idea I had in a lecture just now was to have a sliding-scale roid cap. At the moment the cap is set to 25%, but due to bashing maybe this could be changed. To work out the cap limit would take the value of each of the planets and also take into account the amount of roids there. The upper limit would raise to around 30% but the lower limit would be around 10%, to deter bashing.

Feel free to discuss

I agree with variable cap rates in principle, but as has been said, in some ways it does make it harder for planets not in the top alliances too.
I'm not quite so "pro anything with the word variable in" as I was before.

The only thing I can think of is say:

if target planet is greater than 0.8 times your value, cap rate = 25%
otherwise, sliding scale betwen 0.8 and 0.4 dropping cap rate to 15%
?

wakey · 21 Nov 2005, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah02

There number 1 mostly because there hard to touch.
Anyone else trying to catch up to them gonna find it hard because they losing 30% of there roids to everyone below them because they aint in the number 1 alliance so they going to struggle a lot harder to close the gap.

You get good xp for capping more roids but XP whores are gonna love it specially keeping a nice low roid and value.

We cant change the top end it would de stablise it to much.

We need to concentrate on the bottom half more than the top half.

This idea does deal with the lower end of the game though, I just assumed it was fairly obvious as to how it was benificial to the lower end so I was just pointing out how I also think its useful as a kind of 'difficulty' level to make it tougher for those running away with it

Shyne · 21 Nov 2005, 19:40

Wouldnt it be better if the universe was balancing itself in this way though?

T10 players get an easy, whole round t10 ride in some ways because they are at the top - they have a bigger fleet and newbs cant roid them.

The t100 might see more movement with this variable cap.

The Real Arfy · 21 Nov 2005, 20:42

Base it on current roid count then, not value.

rop1964 · 2 Dec 2005, 02:50

yes.. roiding should be base on value.. the bigger the value of your target the better the roiding..
the lesser the value.. the less it is to be roided.. so small planet can grow! which is what we want.. the big planets are already hard to breach.. let s give the small one catch up!
after all big value mean more ships.. so better defense!