Fleetcatch

[GladiatorLT]

So, for the last couple weeks i have been playing without an ally. was doin well. finaly had a prefect cath/zik 50/50 fleet. t70value and climbing. till couple days ago exi decided to fc me. I realy do think, fleetcatching neutrals is firstly not smart strategicly, second just plain evil. I did have an awesome fleet to be stolen, yes.. but i wasnt an enemy and attackers only got like 100k each.. anyways. back to the point.
i had arround 30 incommings in 1 tick. their total value was 30million+, while mine was 2.4 and my galaxy was 18. Their incomming fleet value was 6 times my own too. I think losing fleet cause of being inactive or own stupidity is one thing, but this is not the way to go. I played 2 months always online, always jgp, never lost fleet, always moved when had too much inc. active as hell. now i came and saw 250k hostiles on my planet and i cant do nothing about it. This is not just about neutrals. Few allies could have gotten enough defence for that, even if i had one. Means, any big ally can anihilate any chosen neutral or small ally member... I dont think its cool to lose a month or more work in 1 hour. I have been playing since r2 and back in the day we used to have overcap thing for roids. The bigger is attacker, the less roids he gets from the target. I think it was a pretty cool feature. if i am attacked by 1 or 2 ppl, i can fight them and win. if i have more incommings, i move fleet and they dont get any roids.
Something similar could be done about fleetcatching or fleet killing in general. This way there would be less prayin' on the weak or ganging the few.
1. if its possible, we could have limitations on total hostile value incomming on a target. say 3 times the targets value, max.
2. there could be a -% on armor, weapons and initiative, the more hostiles are fighting. say in battle report if hostile fleet value is up to 2 times the defenders - everything is normal, the bigger the difference, the more negative buffs attackers get. therefore making it so much harder to kill someone without huge losses.

Thank you for your time and your oppinion.

Gladiator

P.S.
I am not pissed or something about losing the fleet, i know it happens and right now its part of a game. But mayb its possible to remove this particular part from it I think it would be way more fun, and this is a game after all. Fun should be priority.

[Kargool]

So, you were top 70 for value and you didnt have an alliance? Serves you right that you got fleetcaught.. Im sorry, but if you didnt see this coming, then you might want to try getting an alliance next time.

[GladiatorLT]

Sadly Kargool missed the point. I will try to clarify to him and all others.
Thread is not about me. I put myself here as an example. i have been in most allies you all know and i have been in allies most of my time playing pa. I also am not the only person who has ever been fleetcought.
I dont have hard feelings about it and i didnt come here to complain. I did say, too, that almost no ally could have covered what i had incomming in the first place. The idea of a post is try prevent planet bashings in the future and make it more fun to all.

To add, if you dont have good ideas, no point of wasting kb's of planetarion forums.

[Shyne]

I agree, its a massive risk in PA to attack and you can be fleetcaught and lose everything. This is a part of the game though :/

[Vikman]

Would kinda remove the whole point of being a zik...

[add100]

maybe if they made zik they steal but the ship that steals dies so they have to keep rebuilding like say they steal 10 ships they loss 2 of there steal ships

[GladiatorLT]

thats why i offer ideas how to solve this problem am i the onlyone who would like this part of game gone? as a person who has been in the top of the rankings alot of times, i have bashed so many people on my way up there, cause right now, its the way to play. you bash others and hope u dont get bashed. I do feel bad every time when i steal 100% of someones month work and propably make them quit. and they might not come back anymore, but its the way the game is plaid right now. I would gladly look for alternative gameplay if we all figured out a way to stop this one. There is always different ways to play the game, and right now it works best if u can bash other people.

[Kargool]

If there was a thing that could be considered then it would be my suggestion of maxcap at 25% of a steal. Rest of the ships only subvert.

[GladiatorLT]

to wilkman and add100. i am not just talking about ziks. you can be bashed just as nice with terr or xan. and u will get 20% in selvage of what you had...
and the point of ziks is not fleetcatching planets and stealing all their ships.
Terrs have strong armor and weaponry
Caths can fight/stand against/freeze more than any other race
Xans are cheap as hell while still effective in high numbers
Ziks steal ships in fight.
all other races attack for roids and usualy have calculated losses, ziks attack for roids and sometimes have +shipvalue on top of roids. thats their point. Fleetcatching people doesnt have to be the only good way for a zik to grow.

[Nazqil]

As we all know:
Fleetcatches are part of this game. Personally I dont like fleetcatches but even in round 1 people used to catch other fleets and with this way eliminated players who could have beat em in that round.

As add100 already said, losing ships when stealing would be huge step to reduce chance to getting fleetcatched

[GladiatorLT]

Kargool, now this is a better suggestion than your last post Just subvertion used to have higher init than caths and steals have lowest. and stronger damage for subverts cause they dont kill anything. so same kind of ships should have different stats in 1 same battle. But its an idea still.

[GReaper]

Surely there should be something to compensate for the fact a huge amount of ships are lost?

If any of the normal races attack my planet and destroy the majority of my fleet then I'd get a decent amount of salvage back. If a bunch of Ziks steal my fleet then the chances are I'll get very little out of it if it's all planned well with little loss.

Would XP for stolen ships in defence be appropriate? Only for the planet being attacked (not other defenders, it's their choice to defend or not). Fleetcatching is a valid tactic, but there should be something given to the target planet if they can't get defenders for it.

[GladiatorLT]

Originally Posted by Nazqil

As we all know:
Fleetcatches are part of this game. Personally I dont like fleetcatches but even in round 1 people used to catch other fleets and with this way eliminated players who could have beat em in that round.

As add100 already said, losing ships when stealing would be huge step to reduce chance to getting fleetcatched

While stealing ships is a main reason for fleetcatches, its not the only. as you said yourself, some people want to eliminate you as a possible threat and obsticle to the win. So it might be terr or xan attackers. I'm saying that we should try prevent bashing somehow, maybe. Because eliminating players leads to them quiting very often. Same with my own example. I will, come back next round, some people dont.

[GladiatorLT]

Originally Posted by GReaper

Surely there should be something to compensate for the fact a huge amount of ships are lost?

If any of the normal races attack my planet and destroy the majority of my fleet then I'd get a decent amount of salvage back. If a bunch of Ziks steal my fleet then the chances are I'll get very little out of it if it's all planned well with little loss.

Would XP for stolen ships in defence be appropriate? Only for the planet being attacked (not other defenders, it's their choice to defend or not). Fleetcatching is a valid tactic, but there should be something given to the target planet if they can't get defenders for it.

if u get ur entire fleet killed u will get 1/5 of it back in selvage isnt it? and mayb some more from killed enemies. at best being able to build back to 1/3 of your previous state. How fun will that be?

[Partypopp]

Now as we all have felt, fleetcatching is demotivating. one easy way to do something with it is removing the whole zik race...but then u would have a player revolt. then it comes down to how the game is balanced. as long as ppl stick with dirty tactics, it will always be fleetcatching. The creators of the game should have a good hard think of how to balance stolen ships. maybe a good chunk of xp for loosing al those ships?
Then u could at least xp whore with whats left of ur fleet. thoughts on the subject is appriciated

[GladiatorLT]

why do all concentrate on zik race. thread is not about ziks being outbalanced. its about FC and i did give some ideas here of how to solve that. or do they suck so much im not gonna get anyones oppinion on them?

[SpaceMonkey]

With your first point, wouldn't this lead to red defence? Fake attacking each other so no-one else can get in? If fake attacks didn't count then you could tell a fake attack by trying to attack and seeing if it's allowed.

The second point seems similar to the suggestion of having hostile fleets attack each other. I quite like both ideas. Nerf the attackers a bit because the volume of ships means no clear lines of fire and maybe a little bit of friendly fire. Although I worry that this could be abused too by getting someone to attack you with fleets that don't target your ships (same with above).

I applaud your attempts to stop bashing for sure but balancing benefit against abusability is a tough one.

[Benneh]

heheh, the number of people who tried to fleet catch me where i had that spell in >t70 gals was silly.

They are evil but as long as zik are in the game stealing they will remain popular in the game.

[DunkelGraf]

GladiatorLT now i know the one that sent me those mails(or was it somwone else) :-)

I think fleetcatching is a nice way to play this game.
I did it quite alot this round, doing it alone and succeeding.

Omen already tried to catch my fleet and failed cause i fooled their dc by sending a nice fake...

And just now: Its a FO, ToF, Vision retail FC trying to catch my co.

And once again people fail to do this stuff properly!

Maybe next time.

Of course it is shit to loose fleet but whenever someone looses his ships somebody is gaining them..........
PEACE AROUND THE UNIVERSE BY NOT KILLING!!!!!!

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by GladiatorLT

1. if its possible, we could have limitations on total hostile value incomming on a target. say 3 times the targets value, max.

The problem with this is that it would be relatively easy for an organised allaince to shield their key players by constantly having fleets directed at them to push them over the min value - 3x is fairly achieveable. And if you increased the limit to 4, 5, 6 times it would make it alot harder for alliances to achieve, however it may more or less defeat the purpose of having the cap; if you can get totally crushed by enemies sending 3x your value, and they can send up to 6 times your value, then what does the other 3x mean?

This type of suggestion has been made before, and without some way of overcoming this 'abuse' that alliances could use on certain players at certain critical times (eg, attacking major players just as their fleet(s) are about to land and thus prevent fleetcatches from being launched, or at least sufficient ships to be launched), then the advantage this gives those players and that alliance(s) would be significant. It may infact give a two tier system; top alliances able to shield their players, and everyone else takes the full bront of the nastyness of the prevailing system.

2. there could be a -% on armor, weapons and initiative, the more hostiles are fighting. say in battle report if hostile fleet value is up to 2 times the defenders - everything is normal, the bigger the difference, the more negative buffs attackers get. therefore making it so much harder to kill someone without huge losses.

Rule #1: never EVER stuff around with initiative. Past experience and rounds demonstrate how precarious ship stats and 'balance' can be just by altering one ship's initiative just by one number; peg/pulsar duels immediately spring to mind.

Anyway, this has also more or less been described before in various forums; attackers taking more damage, attackering dealing less damage, multiple attackers hitting eachother rather than the player they were ordered to attack, etc. I dont advocate changing the performance of ships in any way based on some ratio of attackers to defenders. However, I do recognise that fleet catching is a problem for player's enjoyment of the round.

Elsewhere, i suggested War Loans as an alternative to help players rebuild critical amounts of their fleet so that they can continue playing. Combined with that rather good suggestion from GReaper, whereby stolen ships give you XP, then there is both the means and incentive for people to continue playing.

[JonnyBGood]

I have no words to describe how much I despise ****ing around with combat in

1. if its possible, we could have limitations on total hostile value incomming on a target. say 3 times the targets value, max.
2. there could be a -% on armor, weapons and initiative, the more hostiles are fighting. say in battle report if hostile fleet value is up to 2 times the defenders - everything is normal, the bigger the difference, the more negative buffs attackers get. therefore making it so much harder to kill someone without huge losses.

this sort of way. All this does is make the game less fun for others. You should have a way to get back your fleet easier not this daft shit about penalising people for actually being vaguely competent at the game.

PS fleetcatches this round have largely required overkill, you were no doubt down in someone's arbiter as still being in an alliance so they assumed more def was possible than actually was. Of course the aim of fleetcatches is that they land so it really doesn't make sense.

[qebab]

I haven't read all the replies in this thread, and as such don't know if it's already been mentioned, but I think that enabling salvage for stolen ships is needed.

That way, you have at least got something left after getting caught.

[Furious]

Originally Posted by add100

maybe if they made zik they steal but the ship that steals dies so they have to keep rebuilding like say they steal 10 ships they loss 2 of there steal ships

Nooo!!

stats are crappy enough already thank you very much

[Nadar]

Fleetcatching shouldn't be nerfed whatever the reason may be. They're valid tactics, can be hard to pull off and besides that, it's your own fault you didn't have an alliance to rely on.

[GladiatorLT]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I have no words to describe how much I despise ****ing around with combat in this sort of way. All this does is make the game less fun for others. You should have a way to get back your fleet easier not this daft shit about penalising people for actually being vaguely competent at the game.

PS fleetcatches this round have largely required overkill, you were no doubt down in someone's arbiter as still being in an alliance so they assumed more def was possible than actually was. Of course the aim of fleetcatches is that they land so it really doesn't make sense.

Yes i was still as OMEN on their noob arby. still, doesnt matter. its not rly the point im tryin to make here. Its not about me. i have been doin fleetcatches myself every round i played zik. And out of last 10 rounds i was not zik once. Its a great way to grow, but i usualy kill atleast 20 ppl. and when i say kill.. i steal 50-90% of their fleet. If i do better, t10 or so.. its even worse. i solo FC someone in t20 or t50 and make them t300 or so, destroy 30-50 planets.. i realy feel for them. My first post was marely a suggestion and food for thoughts. i have talked to some people and we did come to undertstand changing initiative is lethal, but givving negative buffs to attackers is better:

Firstly abusing this is not that easy since ally CAN NOT attack its members, and support planets are tracked down pretty good. All it would do, is that people would not bash others so often and would search for new ways to grow. I think there would still be minor bashes arround the universe, but it wont be so ez to bash someone anymore, if negative attack and defence buffs where implemented.

[GladiatorLT]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Fleetcatching shouldn't be nerfed whatever the reason may be. They're valid tactics, can be hard to pull off and besides that, it's your own fault you didn't have an alliance to rely on.

i did write this before, but you are propably too lazy to read, so this is a special ancore for you. I had 20-25 incommings and 260k incomming ships. i would say mayb 1 or 2 allies could have covered that. Theoreticly... most allies would have watched with sad faces and not bein able to do anything about it. I was told by ND dc that he doesnt think they could have covered that either. so im attacked by exi. nd wouldnt cover it. all others - no. Mayb omen-angels could. but thats a longshot too. I think its not fair for people in small allies, that they can be killed anytime, just as for people who decide to play solo. And negative %for weapons and armor could fix that. PA has tried some crazy ideas in the past, why not try one more. Not like its gonna change everything for everyone. Most people will never see the difference, its just that people wont get owned so often.
If it's not changed and bashes still available i will keep doin them together with everyone else, and i usualy do pretty good with them. Its just my attempt to put in some more fairness into the game. My part for making the world of pa a better place

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by GladiatorLT

i did write this before, but you are propably too lazy to read, so this is a special ancore for you. I had 20-25 incommings and 260k incomming ships. i would say mayb 1 or 2 allies could have covered that. Theoreticly... most allies would have watched with sad faces and not bein able to do anything about it. I was told by ND dc that he doesnt think they could have covered that either. so im attacked by exi. nd wouldnt cover it. all others - no. Mayb omen-angels could. but thats a longshot too. I think its not fair for people in small allies, that they can be killed anytime, just as for people who decide to play solo. And negative %for weapons and armor could fix that. PA has tried some crazy ideas in the past, why not try one more. Not like its gonna change everything for everyone. Most people will never see the difference, its just that people wont get owned so often.
If it's not changed and bashes still available i will keep doin them together with everyone else, and i usualy do pretty good with them. Its just my attempt to put in some more fairness into the game. My part for making the world of pa a better place

------------------

The game has slide to the point where it is almost wholly alliance based. It did not start off that way, it shouldn't end that way either. We need galaxies back, we need clusters, we need races, we need to find ways of re-creating the multi-level relations across the whole game.

Gladiator, you were part of an alliance, and something happened. I don't have that info.

On fleet catching and bashing, right now, both are heavily used. The game rewards, or rather does not limit either enough to encourage other methods of play.

In this particular situation, my own view is that when an alliance were to attack an unaffiliated planet, ie, a player that is not a member of an alliance, perhaps some kind of situation occurs.

suggestions
1. Perhaps an information alert gets received by all other alliances. Wether you'd class this as intel, or merely an alliance launching such a large op c auses it to get noticed. This would make it riskier for alliances to mount large ops on none affiliated planets.
2. Large numbers of fleets approaching none affiliated planets could suffer traffic jams, or ETA problems, or accidents.
3. Large fleets arriving in numbers might suffer problems, init issues, or accidents, disasters.

Perhaps the above are not the only ideas you might look at, but there should be a way to play PA as a stand alone player. That was after all how it was in the early days. You should also be able to play with friends, with your gal, with your cluster, in an alliance or other ways. The game needs more variety than merely 'play in an alliance or just get lost'.

The alliance players will retort, that they like the game as is, but check the numbers of people who come, play, and go away. The alliances are not killing PA, they add to the rich tapestry. But the alliance 'effect' is killing the game.
Single players have to have a place in PA. fix it or watch PA die.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

3. Large fleets arriving in numbers might suffer problems, init issues, or accidents, disasters.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, WHY DONT PEOPLE REALISE THAT YOU DO NOT STUFF WITH SHIP INITIATIVES!!

DONT ASK WHY! JUST DONT DO IT.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, WHY DONT PEOPLE REALISE THAT YOU DO NOT STUFF WITH SHIP STATS!!

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE LOOHOLES, DONT ASK WHY! JUST DONT DO IT.

FYP.

[Ultimate Newbie]

comedy .

<3

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, WHY DONT PEOPLE REALISE THAT YOU DO NOT STUFF WITH SHIP INITIATIVES!!

DONT ASK WHY! JUST DONT DO IT.

--------------------------

Yes, we do it. And if you happen to be in a mass alliance attack on an un-alligned planet and you suffer, GOOD.

And please, stop shouting like some brain damaged loon in the forums.

Ad

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

Yes, we do it.

Well, you shouldnt.

And if you happen to be in a mass alliance attack on an un-alligned planet

I dont see how this has to follow; why would you want to stuff around with ships stats - which are inherrently already unbalanced but potentially (ie, likely) making them even more so - by altering the dynamics between conflicting race and ship combos through a change in initiative, which to the uninitiatied and foolish sounds like a small change, that in reality (such as it is) can have a massive impact on combat be the best way at addressing a problem that has nothing fundamentally to do with ship stats?

And please, stop shouting like some brain damaged loon in the forums.

I will do whatever it takes to make such an important point clear for everyone who may or may not read this forum. The very fact that you've quoted it, and thus presumably read it, is in itself a major improvement and victory in the eternal fight against idiocy.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by GladiatorLT

i did write this before, but you are propably too lazy to read, so this is a special ancore for you. I had 20-25 incommings and 260k incomming ships. i would say mayb 1 or 2 allies could have covered that.

It doesn't matter if they send 5 or 25 fleets to fleetcatch (or attack) you.

a) It's allowed.
b) It's a game about winning, not about pleasing your targets.
c) 25 fleets is a lot and probably a waste, so be happy your target thought so much of you.
d) I AM too lazy to read a whole thread just to catch up on a lot of posts before me.

[Thex]

I believe that the fleet catch should exist as a feature, but it is a negative or poor behaviour. The game should encourage us and alliances to use positive behaviour - good honest attacking and defending.

Negative behaviour, such as bashing a planets fleet to nothing, sending SK's at planet for no particular reason, Zik fleet catch/steals, must be kept in game so that there are options for an alliance/planet to utilise when needed, but they must not provide large rewards to the people using it otherwise people will use them a lot.

Having such a win/lose situation isn't fun when you are effectively able to do nothing about it (when being attacked for roids you can still move your ships and keep your fleet, cov ops can only be tried a few times and you can't cov op someone out of the game).

These type of negative features drive people away from the game and because of that a solution is required to remove a fleet catch being such a reward (perhaps the Zik pilots "bribe" pilots of other ships and the bribes are a % or M,C,E to the planet being attacked).

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Thex

These type of negative features drive people away from the game and because of that a solution is required to remove a fleet catch being such a reward (perhaps the Zik pilots "bribe" pilots of other ships and the bribes are a % or M,C,E to the planet being attacked).

This could be an interesting idea to persue; if total attackers (stealers) exceeds a certain value difference over defenders, then perhaps through a sliding scale the attackers prefer to bribe the defender's ship to their side rather than capturing them.

Of course, there is the question of where this money comes from; if it comes from the ether than it has the same problems as salvage for stolen ships.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Well, you shouldnt.




I dont see how this has to follow; why would you want to stuff around with ships stats - which are inherrently already unbalanced but potentially (ie, likely) making them even more so - by altering the dynamics between conflicting race and ship combos through a change in initiative, which to the uninitiatied and foolish sounds like a small change, that in reality (such as it is) can have a massive impact on combat be the best way at addressing a problem that has nothing fundamentally to do with ship stats?



I will do whatever it takes to make such an important point clear for everyone who may or may not read this forum. The very fact that you've quoted it, and thus presumably read it, is in itself a major improvement and victory in the eternal fight against idiocy.

First, note, and note it carefully, the init is only affected in this senario. Its affected because of the senario. It was ONLY a possible suggestion, as were others. I and anyone else would be open to alternate suggestions. That aside, the whole point is that it skews a battle. Its premise is having an alliance mass against a single planet is not a good thingTM. You might happen to like that. I happen to think its bad for the game, if done in terms of the scale described in this thread. In ANY very large action in history, large logistics and movements cause headaches for the ATTACKER.

Secondly, it is sad that PA and what is left in this community reacts today with violent response to discussion, new ideas, and comes back with stupid things like INIT must be sacrosanct, NEVER, NEVER NEVA Mess with init.

Don't mess with init
Don't mess with alliances,
Don't touch don't chance, don't grow, don't change.

Just to be clear, YOU lot need ideas, suggestions, brainstorming. YOU DO NOT NEED THE NEGATIVE, PUT DOWN, KILL THE IDEA CRAP I SEE HERE EVERY DAY NOW. If someone comes up with a broken idea, or something that doesn't work out, tedious as that might be, its part of the creative process and global discussion. Their idea might awaken a better idea from someone else.

As for someone else who said its part of the game that alliances might bulk up and simply crush single players who are holding their own, yes, that is true, but its not a good part of the game, its not good for the game, and its not good for alliances or players in the longer run.

Alliances should be fighting other alliances. Not selecting single players for total destruction.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Nadar

It doesn't matter if they send 5 or 25 fleets to fleetcatch (or attack) you.

a) It's allowed.

-----------------------------------

Hey, its allowed, so its good. Great!

-----------------------------------

b) It's a game about winning, not about pleasing your targets.

------------------------------------------------------------

No, all games are about playing and being able to enjoy playing, win, lose, or draw. If its *only* about winning, then you'll have even less players than I think you'll have in future.

------------------------------------------------------------

c) 25 fleets is a lot and probably a waste, so be happy your target thought so much of you.

------------------------------------------------------------
25 fleets against a single planet, none allied, whom has only three fleet slots, limited resources and has been fleet caught. I look on in horror with the idea that its now deemed good practice to basically eradicate Gladiator and Dunkelgraph, and others because an alliance decides it.

The fact its allowed is not the issue. The fact that's happening is bad news.
-------------------------------------------------------------
d) I AM too lazy to read a whole thread just to catch up on a lot of posts before me.

[Nadar]

And if they mistaked you for a hostile or if you've gathered up a lot of points in their "he-attacked-us-X-times-book"? I'd do anything within the rules and morals to eradicate my enemies.

edit:typo

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

First, note, and note it carefully, the init is only affected in this senario.

Alas, i was hoping that i would be un-subtle enough to make my point clear. far too often, people suggest altering the initiative of ships in order to do something. I totally reject the premise out of hand because i know how much damage it can do to anything perceived as balance. I dont care what you are trying to do by changing initiative, just dont do it.

I was so blunt because i must remind people not to touch initiative every six months or so on this forum; alas this thread has two mentions of it by different people. To me, this is an alarming trend that i wanted to see squashed as soon as possible.

It was ONLY a possible suggestion, as were others. I and anyone else would be open to alternate suggestions.

I realise this. Which is why i highlighted the initiative only. Indeed, in that rep i sent you i thought your suggestion warranted a new thread to fully describe the intracies of your ideas, because they are quite good. i'm actually mildly dissapointed that you've not done that yet.

That aside, the whole point is that it skews a battle.

I recognise this, completely. My earlier posts agreed with this as well. My point is though, fixing 'unfair' battles should not be the perview of ship stats, rather some other item or game mechanic that wont have any unpredictable or accidental affects that may or may not affect other battles or indeed just general confusion regarding the ship stats.

Keep them seperate issues, please.

You might happen to like that. I happen to think its bad for the game, if done in terms of the scale described in this thread. In ANY very large action in history, large logistics and movements cause headaches for the ATTACKER.

I never said that i liked it. A long term search of my posts over the last four or five years would generally suggest that i was in favour of changes that evened up play, that favoured galaxies over alliances, that helped new players get started, and so forth. I never disputed the historical premise that attackers have logistical problems - though i can think of a couple of exceptions, i would also point out that defenders tend to also have logistical problems. Neither of which i had brought up before, and thus you've created a strawman with which to rebuff my argument on a totally seperate issue. Granted, you are permitted to do this, but personally i dont think that this adds much to your argument.

Secondly, it is sad that PA and what is left in this community reacts today with violent response to discussion, new ideas, and comes back with stupid things like INIT must be sacrosanct, NEVER, NEVER NEVA Mess with init.

Its hard to argue with experience. We've been here, done that before, and we;ve been burnt before. As the saying goes; "once bitten, twice shy". This is not a new solution to this problem, it has been suggested innumerable times before. They tend to suffer from the same problems. Rather than going through all that again, its far simpler to be simple.

Don't mess with init

You're learning!

Don't mess with alliances,

Never have i said this, especially given the current context.

Don't touch don't chance, don't grow, don't change.

Wow, its that strawman again! Never have i said anything like this before unless there was an excellent reason (such as it having failed before) to be against it. I think you'll find that i'm very pro change, i want to improve the game as much as possible and as best i can. Sadly, change is not synonomous with improve, and that's when opinions can differ. I see your proposal of one of the methods to alter the outcome of 'unfair' battles is to change the initiatives of either the attackers or defenders to the defender's favour. I dont think that's an improvement.

YOU DO NOT NEED THE NEGATIVE, PUT DOWN, KILL THE IDEA CRAP I SEE HERE EVERY DAY NOW.

Clearly, we dont need to be negative here, because we've got you!! \o/

...

If someone comes up with a broken idea, or something that doesn't work out, tedious as that might be, its part of the creative process and global discussion. Their idea might awaken a better idea from someone else.

Again, i never said that it didnt. I was merely taking the most simplistic route because i saw it as the best course of action to take in order to make the point that artificially altering the shipstats on a battle-by-battle basis is a BAD thing. It was not an attack on you personally, or the creative process in general. It was an expression of despair and dismay that initiative is repeatedly seen as a solution to a problem when it clearly isnt / when there are *much* better ways of going about this.

Alliances should be fighting other alliances. Not selecting single players for total destruction.

From what i understand, the Original Poster was a member of Omen immediately prior to their merge. It would be safe to assume that many alliance's arbitors would have still shown him to be Omen. Omen is a top alliance. Assuming the fleetcatch was organise by an alliance, that would constitute an alliance v alliance battle, at a single planet. Further, it was a battle that the attackers sought to win, as launching in order to loose is generally only a practise of hirr (<3). In that regard, this instance is less of a problem. That does not mean that this is a problem that cannot be fixed. Again i'll make my point, the solution of this problem is not through altering the ship stats on a battle by battle basis.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Gladiator was alliance less for *at least* a number of days before this happened. At least you've stopped yelling.

MOD EDIT: Please don't quote lengthy posts in order to add a one-line response. Thanks - Rob

[Alki]

i think i was one of the people who stole the 100k, yippee

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

Gladiator was alliance less for *at least* a number of days before this happened.

And all alliance's arbitors would have been immediately updated with that information? problably not. Was there an expectation that Gladiator would be re-added after the merging process was through, and thus attackers saw an opportunity for a top ranking planet to be attacked whilst not under the immediate protection of his alliance, and thus taking advantage of the situation for which Gladiator's own alliance forced upon him?

Either way, the point is moot.

At least you've stopped yelling.

I presume that by not refuting any of my points that were actually on topic, you now see the light that ship stats are not hte solution to this problem?

[furball]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

Gladiator was alliance less for *at least* a number of days before this happened.

Since he was a top 70 player (on value), it was hardly obvious that he was going to be kicked - even if he was a whiney leech on the alliance like many former Omen players were (from what I've been told).

Don't you know how intel works? A player leaving a tag in-game doesn't automatically get struck from each alliance's arbiter. In fact, you rarely know that a player has left unless you detect contrary activities from the planet or you recieve information to tell you that they're no longer a member.

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

At least you've stopped yelling.

Oh please, Mr Passive-Aggressive.


And while you're here, edit that post to remove the quote. If you're going to waste Sovereign's time by giving a one line reply, you could at least make our lives easier (and our scroll-wheels last longer) by not quoting his entire post in doing so.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

And all alliance's arbitors would have been immediately updated with that information? problably not. Was there an expectation that Gladiator would be re-added after the merging process was through, and thus attackers saw an opportunity for a top ranking planet to be attacked whilst not under the immediate protection of his alliance, and thus taking advantage of the situation for which Gladiator's own alliance forced upon him?

Either way, the point is moot.


I presume that by not refuting any of my points that were actually on topic, you now see the light that ship stats are not hte solution to this problem?

---------------------------

1. Gladiator was targetted for elimination. The discussion about wether or not an alliance did this to eliminate him, break him, or attack what they saw as an alliance target.

You'll forgive me if I take the assumption that they knew he wasn't going to get help, and they carried out an in game assassination. Within the rules, and within some people's moral acceptance.

I happen to think Gladiator made a few errors, one being not getting allied again. The semantics in this case, and I treat it as a case, remain.

Ship init
--------
I have no issue at all in seeing changes in INIT or anything else. The issue is where and why should changes take place. In this case, a 'traffic' penalty of some kind, be that init, ETA, or other methods.

The issue for me, after that, is seeing is PA team think the idea is codable, and then if its workable at all. Frequently, the reality is people look at the problem, take the INIT suggestion in this case, and think up a better, more workable idea.

The INIT system is probably inflexable to create conditions where changes occur. I think I prefer the idea that other alliance 'get to hear' when you clobber none aligned worlds. Thats seems more elegant, and creates risks to the alliance that dares to play that way (leaving them open to other alliances taking an interest in the unsporting behaviour)

I gave several suggestions, I am sure others can chime in with their own.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by furball

Since he was a top 70 player (on value), it was hardly obvious that he was going to be kicked - even if he was a whiney leech on the alliance like many former Omen players were (from what I've been told).

Don't you know how intel works? A player leaving a tag in-game doesn't automatically get struck from each alliance's arbiter. In fact, you rarely know that a player has left unless you detect contrary activities from the planet or you recieve information to tell you that they're no longer a member.



Oh please, Mr Passive-Aggressive.


And while you're here, edit that post to remove the quote. If you're going to waste Sovereign's time by giving a one line reply, you could at least make our lives easier (and our scroll-wheels last longer) by not quoting his entire post in doing so.

----------------------

I'm confident the attacking alliance knew exactly what it was doing. The smokescreening and bull about Intel not being know is claptrap.
If I want to speak to Sov's bitch, I'll haul on your lead.

[furball]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

I'm confident the attacking alliance knew exactly what it was doing. The smokescreening and bull about Intel not being know is claptrap.

Why? Fancy producing any evidence to support this?

I'm comfortable supporting my comments on intel with my own experience of being responsible for a top 10 alliance's intel for a few rounds. You?

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

If I want to speak to Sov's bitch, I'll haul on your lead.

Sovereign's well aware that he's my bitch, not vice versa.









And while you're there, calm yourself down. Posting in this manner won't get you anywhere.

[Nadar]

I see the potentional new robban* here




*who actually improved during the last few weeks (minus a few posts).

[Pilatus]

To avoid the amount of fc's in future, you could let fleets that's been eta 3 or less in another gal, need a tick to regroup after coming home. On that tick those ships wouldnt be able to kill or get killed. The reason for eta 3 instead of 4 would be so ppl got get a chance to recall incase of ingal def, without needing to wait the 1 tick to regoup after the fleet returns.

In that regroup tick it shouldn't be possible to remove ships from that fleet, but maybe possible to move ships to that fleet. It should be possible to prelaunch the fleet the tick it comes home, but only with +1 eta or more.

something would probably need to be done to improve the ziks, if something like that were going to be done though.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by furball

Why? Fancy producing any evidence to support this?

I'm comfortable supporting my comments on intel with my own experience of being responsible for a top 10 alliance's intel for a few rounds. You?

Sovereign's well aware that he's my bitch, not vice versa.

And while you're there, calm yourself down. Posting in this manner won't get you anywhere.

-------------------

I'm not at liberty right now to disclose 'evidence' or even discuss it beyond what has been said, perhaps after the round is complete. Even if such evidence were posted, the argument would continue as to wether the alliance committed an assassination, or wether they merely still had him on a counter alliance hit-list.

Sovereign, LIKE YOU, is under no obligation whatsoever to have to respond, or 'waste time' reading postings here. If he had an issue, I'm sure he can complain himself. So, just to repeat, If I wanted his bitch, I'd have yanked the lead. Keep your Calm down responses for those who require them. (You might care to deal with Sov's SHOUTING before butting in claiming others are out of line.)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

Sovereign, LIKE YOU, is under no obligation whatsoever to have to respond, or 'waste time' reading postings here. If he had an issue, I'm sure he can complain himself. So, just to repeat, If I wanted his bitch, I'd have yanked the lead. Keep your Calm down responses for those who require them. (You might care to deal with Sov's SHOUTING before butting in claiming others are out of line.)

Sovereign is a moderator of these forums and is involved in game development. Not responding to daft suggestions of altering initiative would be irresponsible on his behalf. This entire thread is representative of a dangerous trend towards attempting to balance the amount of fun in the game by penalising some people for doing well instead of attempting to help those who are doing poorly. In terms of game development that's a stone cold killer. And don't use daft lines like "if i want someone's bitch blah blah blah". You're presumably not ten years old, try and act like it.