bashing

[wakka]

they should do something about bashing, If a 30 million player is allowed to attack an 8 million player your going to start losing players... you should only be allowed to attack a player 5 to 10 million lower than your score. Because the little guy doesn't stand a chance,and will quit...

[Leshy]

Unforunately you have to keep a very fine balance between giving players the freedom to do what they want, and at the same time protecting them from others.

In a game which is PvP-oriented, limiting the amount of options is a very harsh rule. Can you imagine playing Unreal Tournament 2003/Quake III/Counterstrike Deathmatch where you can only hit 2 out of the 13 other players in the map?

In my opinion, imposing limits aren't a good solution. I'm not particularly fond of the inability to attack in-galaxy, for example. Instead of imposing limits on what you can and can't do, they should make it rewarding to hit players near to your own size, by having a variable roid cap, for example.

Get a max of 1% a tick of your target's roids if he's 1/10th of your own size, up to a max of 25% a tick for someone roughly your own size. The one thing that you could limit is the amount of ships you can send at a smaller planet. Having to send a small fleet at a small player for little roids is very unrewarding, whereas hitting someone closer to your own size would have much bigger gains.

[hAl]

I already posted sevral counter bashing measures in several threads but I like this one the most myself:

If a planet loses 33% or more of it's planet score on a tick then all fleets attacking defending and still incoming are recalled automatically.

hAl

[Psi_K]

Originally posted by Leshy
Get a max of 1% a tick of your target's roids if he's 1/10th of your own size, up to a max of 25% a tick for someone roughly your own size. The one thing that you could limit is the amount of ships you can send at a smaller planet. Having to send a small fleet at a small player for little roids is very unrewarding, whereas hitting someone closer to your own size would have much bigger gains.

ooohh, I like dat

[Baco]

I started a thread this afternoon about this but I got accused of being complained and called looser etc...U know...those nice constructive persons around

Anyway I agree that something must be done although I also agree that there must be some freedom and ofc the possibility of sending a lot of ships to top planets etc. Combining this 2 things is the most difficult thing....today 9M score fleet was killed for 23 roids (58M worth fleet attacking a 13M planet), imo this shouldn't be allowed but I know it's very hard to arranje some rule that works and we all know that rules aint good for the game....anyway there should be a rule or something that wouldn't allow some1 to land if the attacking fleets that tick were 3 times the planet size, 3 sounds a good number...this shouldn't be a prob to taking down top planets since 300M worth fleet in a 100M planet aint exactly easy to defend, for exemple....
It just came to my mind now....
Thx!

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by hAl
I already posted sevral counter bashing measures in several threads but I like this one the most myself:

If a planet loses 33% or more of it's planet score on a tick then all fleets attacking defending and still incoming are recalled automatically.

hAl

Bad idea - a better option would be to have a very high rate of salvage for the defending planet if the attacking fleets are worth substantially more than the planet score.

This should not apply to other defenders, since they're choosing to defend whereas the planet under attack is not choosing to be attacked.

[Baco]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Bad idea - a better option would be to have a very high rate of salvage for the defending planet if the attacking fleets are worth substantially more than the planet score.

This should not apply to other defenders, since they're choosing to defend whereas the planet under attack is not choosing to be attacked.

I like the ideia....

[Razorback]

On the otherhand this would have to go bothways or ? i mean ppl shouldnt be allowed to hit bigger planets then so we have no more lemmingrushes or teaming up on the big guys with 40 planets.

Imo those limitations only make it worse and its only cureing the results but not really the root of the problem. Infact bashing occurs because there is a lack of targets not because ppl tend to pick on small planets for 20 roids. A common view is that if playersbase shrinks further and r10 doesnt get the butt off again, then pa is dead, with or without anti-bashing ideas.
You cant play 2k ticks with 2k players and exspect the winning 100-300 not to pick over and over on the same targets. Thats from the amount of inactives/own planets impossible. We have seen a similar problem in r5 with "booking planets" when blocks were prolly not bigger but the private gals were infact "napped" with partly only 3 players in 25 playergals beeing "allied". This leaded to a big immobile universe which beated the crap out of a couple of gals over and over.

This round we have a similar effect but coming from a much smaller playerbase. Stats say we are up to 4.5k planets. Effictively you can remove 20% of that from multi and dead planets maybe even more. Which puts us down to about 3.6k existing planets. the top250 represent already ~9% of that not to mention the planets with naps because of shared galaxies. This leads in comparison of r6 with 15k players ? and maybe 12k real/active ones -> 250/12.000 barely 2% to a much different situation.

[Spearhead]

well Focht you can say what you want...but again i see red from your gal...60 million worth of fleet on a 10 miller, and 150 million on a 20 miller...ETA 5 ofc i must say i'm very impressed with your attacks. you do this game honour...i will go into vacation now..cause i expect them to come for my roids when i' m death and burried....

**** it every time i hit 20% of one your gal's planet score, oops there they are...full force...bit lame but hey you Fury right? you should pick on your own size! shame the rules f anti-bashing aint implemented yet...btw hAl love your idea!

[menth0l]

Cap limits don't really work as some of the attacks i've seen recently can NOT be about roids, but rather about totally annihilating fleets.

[n4m3l355]

correct me if i'm wrong but we already got anti-bash-stuff installed dont we.. like dont hit anything smaller then 20% of your own score

i'm not sure what we want to see here.. but what do you expect that you can only hit those from your own size? it got nothing todo with gameplay then. its always that a small one gets beaten up by a bigger one. get used to it i assume your that to in RL or are you going to tell him then to that he's to big for a descent capping ratio

[Al_zz]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Bad idea - a better option would be to have a very high rate of salvage for the defending planet if the attacking fleets are worth substantially more than the planet score.

This should not apply to other defenders, since they're choosing to defend whereas the planet under attack is not choosing to be attacked.

Why do you think it is a bad idea ? I see no arguments...
I actually thought my suggestion was excellent. It does not impose any limits on attackers but it just makes a heavy bashing fleet rather less effective for roiding purposes.

hAl

[gzambo]

Originally posted by Al_zz
Why do you think it is a bad idea ? I see no arguments...
I actually thought my suggestion was excellent. It does not impose any limits on attackers but it just makes a heavy bashing fleet rather less effective for roiding purposes.

hAl

its a bad idea because those players sitting up at the top would have to grow some balls if they had to hit someone closer to their score without escort fleets

[Hicks]

Good to see there's still newbies in Planetarion, do us a favour and stay in vacation. Seriously do you want a war game with no attacks ? Why don't you go buy yourself a copy of Sim City.

Yet again I'll say it, sliding roid cap based on score to reward players for attacking players near to their size. Remove all hard limits. If it's totally unprofitable to hit smaller planets yet profitable to attack larger ones (Reguardless of what ships they have, i.e. remove virtual fleet score) then players will simply target bigger planets.

The 33% of your score loss and all fleets are recalled is rather stupid by the way, does anyone left playing remember Round 4 and the lack of losses anywhere ? How often do small planets have their fleets caught ? They almost always run and if they do not its their own fault. Losing huge amounts of score is something which only really effects top planets, no one cares if some 8 million guy losses 2k scarabs, yet again this just seems to be another hAl attempt to reduce the fun for anyone doing remotely well, the people who have suffered the most from having fleets losses are never the ones who whine.

[Al_zz]

Originally posted by Hicks
The 33% of your score loss and all fleets are recalled is rather stupid by the way, does anyone left playing remember Round 4 and the lack of losses anywhere ? How often do small planets have their fleets caught ? They almost always run and if they do not its their own fault. Losing huge amounts of score is something which only really effects top planets, no one cares if some 8 million guy losses 2k scarabs, yet again this just seems to be another hAl attempt to reduce the fun for anyone doing remotely well, the people who have suffered the most from having fleets losses are never the ones who whine.

And you do not see the contradiction in what you are saying here ?
Firsty you say it won't make much off a difference but then you claim it takes the fun out of the game for people doing well... !!! Amazing how you can manage to to put those two things together. I actually think my suggestion could even replace the 20% rule which you hate so much.

hAl

p.s. don't put up r4 stats as example for PA stats in general as those were ridiculous.

[Cothaniel]

Sliding cap is the way to go. Altho resources needs to generate less or no score, or else people can donate to fund to lower or raise cap (defender and attacker respectively).

Never saw the point of resources generating score.

[Al_zz]

Originally posted by Cothaniel
Sliding cap is the way to go. Altho resources needs to generate less or no score, or else people can donate to fund to lower or raise cap (defender and attacker respectively).

Sliding cap seems not very functional in a 4 race universe. Inherit to races it is obvious that for instance a cathaar can much more easily and succesfully roid bigger planets than a Xandathrri can.

Also a sliding scale might result in an even quicker stagnation cause if in stead of a 20% limit there would be a downgrade to for instance 2% max cap (in case of 5 times bigger attacker) there would not be a target worth attacking anywhere much quicker than now. Even if it stops bashing of big planets attacking small planets it would be harmfull if it causes massive stagnation.

A sliding cap seems a measure which is better for larger alliances and battlegroups. Attacking planets in masses will be rewarded high. Battlegroups will become extremly vital cause you will want (and need) to team up with planets of about equal size so you can attack planets of equal size with optimal cap. Probably you would try to regularly rearrange battlegroups so that they contain planet of simular size.

There is the problem of coping with red defence where big planets screws the cap by sending a single ship or small fleet to ruin the cap. since the sliding scale suggestions made seem to only look at planet score and not look at fleetscore this would become a logical strategy.

So allthough I will not dismiss a sliding scale as it might have a lot of merit I also see a lot of problems that it could cause. It would ceratinly need a lot of tuning to get right and even then I'm not sure it would overcome these problems.

hAl

[Baco]

I still think there should be as much of freedom for players as possible but I also think it's bad to see ppl quitting for loosing their entire fleets and no chances to rebuild due to lack of roids, etc. For what I have read maybe a large amount of salvage for players attacked by fleets worth 2-3 times their planet score would be the best option. Also flexible cap might work but this have been discused already and as far as I know it seems a bit hard to code.
Thx!

[gzambo]

Originally posted by Cothaniel
Sliding cap is the way to go. Altho resources needs to generate less or no score, or else people can donate to fund to lower or raise cap (defender and attacker respectively).

Never saw the point of resources generating score.

if the sliding cap is in relation to the size of ur attackers then it can only be a good thing also the larger ur attackers the more salvage u should get

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Al_zz
Why do you think it is a bad idea ? I see no arguments...

There are so many reasons as to why it's a stupid idea that I barely know where to begin.

First of all, planets should be able to lose substantial amounts of score - this is a war game, after all. Your rule would have prevented several attacks this round - for example the Eclipse attack on Rabba where the defenders were fooled into thinking that the attack was a fake. Having such attacks screwed up by such a rule seems silly to me.

It's also unfair to attackers imo - in alliance warfare it is good strategy to try to kill enemy fleets, and I don't think this should be prevented. If someone has set up such an attack then they are entitled to a reward for it if the attack is successful.

My proposal would have allowed the attackers to have a reward for their attack, but also given the defender much more salvage to rebuild with. Your idea would have left the attackers with no profit, and the defender with a third of his fleet missing. I fail to see how your suggestion is better

The salvage, ofc, would only be increased for the planet under attack - so it works for the guy who gets his fleet killed by ETA 5 in-cluster fighter fleets, but doesn't make it too easy for alliances to defend top planets safe in the knowledge that even if they lose the battle they will not lose much resources.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Hicks
The 33% of your score loss and all fleets are recalled is rather stupid by the way, does anyone left playing remember Round 4 and the lack of losses anywhere ?

I used to gain points off being attacked heh. Although that round was horribly unbalanced, at least until the mid-round changes with the phoenix et al.



Also raising the percentage above what it is at the minute is a ridiculous attempt to address a problem, slightly similar to the idea of getting rid of slavery by killing all your slaves. It works in theory but then you actually think about what you're proposing....

[hAl]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
There are so many reasons as to why it's a stupid idea that I barely know where to begin.

First of all, planets should be able to lose substantial amounts of score - this is a war game, after all. Your rule would have prevented several attacks this round - for example the Eclipse attack on Rabba where the defenders were fooled into thinking that the attack was a fake. Having such attacks screwed up by such a rule seems silly to me.

It's also unfair to attackers imo - in alliance warfare it is good strategy to try to kill enemy fleets, and I don't think this should be prevented. If someone has set up such an attack then they are entitled to a reward for it if the attack is successful.

My proposal would have allowed the attackers to have a reward for their attack, but also given the defender much more salvage to rebuild with. Your idea would have left the attackers with no profit, and the defender with a third of his fleet missing. I fail to see how your suggestion is better

The salvage, ofc, would only be increased for the planet under attack - so it works for the guy who gets his fleet killed by ETA 5 in-cluster fighter fleets, but doesn't make it too easy for alliances to defend top planets safe in the knowledge that even if they lose the battle they will not lose much resources.

Killing of a third of someones fleet in a single tick seems enough for a kill attack. There has hardly ever in any round been any decent sized planet that lost 33% of it's score in a tick. I have no data on Rabba's specific case but any top player losing over 1/3 of his fleet in a tick will be severly batttered. But as I say I rarely seen such a significant loss on a top player. In fact never I think.

You said in warfare it is a good strategy to kill your opponents fleets. True but it hardly ever happens you catch anyone so you get to kill 1/3 of his fleet. And if you get such a huge result the attack will be successfull anyways.

And for the reward we all know that in those cases the cap over 3 ticks will be horrible anyways so there is hardly a reward lost. I think that people like Storebo and Girlee that were roided for many days in a row hardly ever had a cap over 2 or 3 % of their roids lost anyways. Most often in fact it might be a blessing if all the fleets of profiting leechers are recalled and you can launch a second wave cleanly and still go for the roids.

hAl

[Hicks]

Sandsnake lost like 50% in a tick when Titans caught his fleet on return in Round 7.

Rabba fell from 3rd to like 150th over the 3 ticks so that must have been quite a hefty loss.