View Poll Results: Should structure killers be modified for R32?
|
Yes
|
|
56 |
38.10% |
No
|
|
72 |
48.98% |
I don't care
|
|
19 |
12.93% |
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 13:11
|
#51
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
That said, a lot depends on there being a sufficient risk that using SKs against random planets will cost you in the long run, so perhaps it would be an interesting idea to raise the bash limit for fleets with SKs in them, or make it so that sending SKs reduces roid cap. Opinions?
|
I like it - at least it would make the use of SKs a conscious decision and would prevent them being included as the "default option".
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 13:12
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Introduce salvage for lost constructions, more salvage the lower your output is (exluding pop to prevent abuse).
Lower the maximum amount destroyed in 1 tick to 5%.
And make them 50% more efficient (which still is pretty crappy) to make up for ^.
PS. Mz's idea is a good one too, reducing roidcap and/or raising bashlimit if you include SKs.
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 13:39
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
You should be happy about that
|
Talk to someone whos spoken to me legitimately for an hour or so. Theyll prolly hurt ur feelings with their assessment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 15:52
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
Actually, it uses the factories of the shipclass. I was playing speedgame the other day, and while it told me it was going to use Heavy Factories, my Behemoths (De SK) were ordered with Medium Factories.
|
Like this
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 18:06
|
#55
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Making it a tactical option to include sk's but reduce roid cap would be a good idea as would getting salvage for lost con
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 18:25
|
#56
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 279
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
have voted no, because anything that isn't top 400 will lose every structure they have.
and if you really want to use SK you can always do so even if they are not part of an attack fleet, but they are probably easier to stop.
__________________
HA-ND-EC-DLR-APP-ODDR-Kittenz-Carisan-Tal Shiar-Carnage-ODDR
Co founder ODDR
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 18:48
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I still have no idea whether Yes means you're against the current "in-attackfleet" setup or if No does.
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 19:02
|
#58
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
A Yes vote means they stay as they currently are in the beta stats (structure killers are in the same class as pods).
A No vote means JBG will put each race's sk in an eta class where they don't have a roiding fleet as they have been in previous rounds (bar for zik where JBG will make them bs class).
|
Its all so confusing isnt it Patrikc? If only it was explained in the first post.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 19:37
|
#59
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
If only the first 14 replies weren't made before Munkee's edit.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 20:07
|
#60
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Including a small amount of salvage for destroyed structures helps.
I say keep that allowing them in attacks fleets is ok, because if this was a brand new game no one would be any of the wiser.
1) As it stands you only kill 10% of a targets structures, so its not like you kill them all (even with multiple waves.
2) They are damn weak, if you get deffed your most likely to lose them (cost v effectiveness is basically nil) .
3) Suggestion: SK are like the torpedoes of old, they die upon hitting the target. So that could also be included into salvage.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
20 Jun 2009, 20:48
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Its all so confusing isnt it Patrikc? If only it was explained in the first post.
|
It is when the question itself isn't formulated properly at all. I'd like to see a fi/co Ter SK though, according Monroe's explanation.
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 02:28
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
SKs in pod class without rebalancing is what bothers me. There has been good suggestions to bring in more balance though
- reduced roid capping
- SKs dying on impact
I don't believe salvage is a solution, as the problem when you lose your constructions is the time you need to get them back.
atm I don't see why people wouldn't use them. Even if you're not a fan, as soon as you are hit by SKs, you'll build some and attack the same way.
How will react a semi active or an unlucky player losing his ships and the capacity to build them ? And the player with ships in prod for wave 3, losing a factory >>> ships can't be out of prod in time, defence is focked up...
Balancing the change would be the best option. Putting the SKs outside the class pods with this set of stats is like removing them from the game for Xan and Etd
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
Last edited by Makhil; 21 Jun 2009 at 02:39.
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 04:28
|
#63
|
Planetarion Forum Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
It is when the question itself isn't formulated properly at all. I'd like to see a fi/co Ter SK though, according Monroe's explanation.
|
My explanation is an edited version of what JBG gave me. If you have a better non biased explanation you wish to see I am willing to make changes. I appologize that the poll was initially unclear but I was responding to JBG's request for a poll and did not put much thought into the specific wording of the topic and question.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10
#strategy
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 07:11
|
#64
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
A fair point.
Lots of valid points
|
Cochese just convinced me into saying yes and keep them in main attack fleet classes.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 07:49
|
#65
|
Friends and Foes
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Estonia
Posts: 461
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
what ever class youy make them, i'll still built SK's to piss you lot off
__________________
ASCENDANCY
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 10:55
|
#66
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 151
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Wont having sk in a Xan attack fleet just make more people play Xan?
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 11:11
|
#67
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
Wont having sk in a Xan attack fleet just make more people play Xan?
|
Yes, when choosing which race to play.. the primary concern is always "Where is my SK".
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 13:34
|
#68
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
No, but now with the added option of sks in attackfleets surely xan fi is a more viable and interesting option because of the only 1 tick of alliance defense. In all honesty I think that is one of the reasons why it will be stupid.
Come on, this is a change that is NOT needed, nobody NEEDS to have structurekillers in their attackfleets, and as I've said, it will alienate a lot of players whom prefer not to use structurekillers and dislike it being used. I honestly don't understand why people want this in if half the community dislike it greatly. For the community, and for the game, please drop the idea. In addition, the scanners for smaller alliances that only play to scan for their alliance will more or less be severly hit by this.
As proven before when sk's have been used in wars, when the wars end, and people go back to galaxy raids, they usually don't use the sk's if they're in a seperate shiptype, now with them in the main attackshiptype, people will have to chose not to attack with them in, thus a lot of independent and less active planets will get hit with sk's.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 13:55
|
#69
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 151
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Yes, when choosing which race to play.. the primary concern is always "Where is my SK".
|
I didn´t say it was a primary concern - just an influence.
Alliances might make sure they have Xans to attack with
AND some individuals might think fi SK might be fun - thus trying Xan
It may lead to too many Xans (which aint good)
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 14:52
|
#70
|
Bad Girl
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: right here..right now
Posts: 1,055
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlaTa
what ever class youy make them, i'll still built SK's to piss you lot off
|
this is the point of many people who build them, they dont need them placed neatly for attack fleets, they build them anyway !
__________________
R1 - noob
R2,3,4, - ICD | R5 -ICD HC |R6 - HR Command | R7 - HR Command/NoS
R8,9,9.5,- HR HC /NoS Exec | R10 - HR HC | R10.5 - HR HC (FYTFO with LCH)
R11 -> NOW HR HC
(a round history not condusive to suceeding in exams, having a life or much sleep )
I'm not misunderstood ... I'm EVIL
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 20:29
|
#71
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
No, but now with the added option of sks in attackfleets surely xan fi is a more viable and interesting option because of the only 1 tick of alliance defense. In all honesty I think that is one of the reasons why it will be stupid.
I honestly don't understand why people want this in if half the community dislike it greatly.
|
Obviously I wont take this literally as 700 people havent voiced against the idea. But if 50% dont like the idea, 50% do (or dont care).
There are a few reasons why people say SK in main fleet are a bad idea.
Xan Fi/Co get unfair advantage when using SK due to ETA
1) Welcome to the fact FI/CO always have had an advantage over large ships.
2) You dont hear many people complain that 1 tick defence when roids/fleet are concerned.
Adding SK to main attack fleets will mean smaller people have a harder time.
Time to remove pods then, so no one losses roids.
"its not about cost of losing structures, but the time rebuilding them"
Not many people attack more than once a day, so losing roids is a big deal and getting the roids back could take a while.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
21 Jun 2009, 22:30
|
#72
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Have you listened to the arguments at all?
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 01:30
|
#73
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 673
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
voted i don't care,
never can be bothered building them, untill i get hit by it myself.
then its all about payback.
__________________
At some point the world shits on everybody. Pretending it ain't shit makes you an idiot, not an optimist."
If life hands you lemons, drink more tequila
After the game is over the king and the pawn end up in the same box
HA - asc -rdm-asc-VR- #ODDR - APP
Finally retired
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 01:53
|
#74
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
There are a few reasons why people say SK in main fleet are a bad idea.
Xan Fi/Co get unfair advantage when using SK due to ETA
1) Welcome to the fact FI/CO always have had an advantage over large ships.
2) You dont hear many people complain that 1 tick defence when roids/fleet are concerned.
|
I actually have to say I agree with this response. The fact remains, if we're deciding whether or not to put them in the roiding fleets, Xan has to have low ETA structure killers because of their roiding fleets. It's pretty simple really, if you are against them in fi/co fleets then you're obviously going to be against them in roiding fleets at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
Adding SK to main attack fleets will mean smaller people have a harder time.
Time to remove pods then, so no one losses roids.
"its not about cost of losing structures, but the time rebuilding them"
Not many people attack more than once a day, so losing roids is a big deal and getting the roids back could take a while.
|
Admittedly, I don't really understand why people are comparing asteroids to structures. It is possible to get back a large number of asteroids in one day. It's not uncommon to get 100-200% increases in asteroids during a particularly good day roiding (and potentially initiating). Structures are much more difficult to regain. Yes, I understand that nearly everyone has brought up the time issue, but it's obviously a large impact. I don't see how you can tell me that someone with 120 constructions, maybe 10 days from round end, isn't impacted by 5 waves of SKs landing, leaving him suddenly with 70-75 constructions with no way to recover that. It costs you resources rebuilding, along with the lost resources (or production, security, etc) that you would have gained without it.
I'm not saying SKs in the roid fleets would completely ruin the game, like some people feel, but I do think that it's pretty obvious that it's not helping player growth. I'm not one for an easier game per say, I'd rather see it get harder and more tactically difficult. However, at this point in time, I'd rather see some pro-new player implements along with Pete's supposed marketing that helps grow the player base.
I'm just not sure why we're doing/arguing over things like this that, in the end, don't really improve the game, instead of new ideas that can actually evolve the game and game play, especially for new players.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 02:13
|
#75
|
Bi-Winning
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: nfi
Posts: 290
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Holy **** it's a war game. Every bit of damage I do to anyone who isn't me or someone who can help me is beneficial for me.
|
true that.
__________________
ѵսȽցΛґ
H-A ☆ ODDR ☆ Apprime ☆ xVx ☆ VisioN ☆ HEROES ☆ Ultores
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 09:51
|
#76
|
Jazz Maverick
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I think SKs should be made extremely effective for round 32.
This would possibly give the game the real "shake up" that it is obviously desperate for. Finally people who haven't been moaning about SK's for the last 22 rounds will have something to moan about that isn't a.) ascendancy, or b.) the stats of all of the other ship types.
Perhaps more importantly people who /have/ been moaning about structure killers for the last 22 rounds will finally be able to be taken seriously instead of being condemned within the community as the whiny bitches they have been up until now (whereby now I mean a hypothetical round 32 where structure killers are actually quite ace!).
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 10:03
|
#77
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
if u put SKs in the attack fleets then add 100% salvage for the lost contructions as well so that planet loses expensive time rebuilding them(if he chooses so) tho at least dosent lose resources just cause someone wants to gangbang on someone.. 10 waves of xans with SKs would b ridiculous
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 12:15
|
#78
|
...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 146
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
I do love how people have suddenly arrived at the decision just because there is a fi SK that everyone in the game is going to build them, that would imply that the same people would all jump of a cliff if the option was there to do so, not because they were all suicidal but because there was the option to.
OK my analogy might have been a little harsh but you get the picture, its a concious decision to build SKs no matter what class they are the fact they have lower armour etc than most other ships surly means that they will be actually useless when there is defence around and actually cost u value to land. ( i believe JBG pointed this out earlier). To take another analogy we did not see the USA choose not to use the latest military technology in iraq just because the iraqi people didn't have it advocating the removal of the fi SK is pretty much saying "Oh no i am gonna take a bit more losses if i fail to get defence, this game is unfair!!" however i suspect the moment an SK fleet lands on your planet you will not hesitate to return the favour.
PA is a war game for christs sake enough of the "arrrrgh im gonna lose some of my precious stuff lets change it so i don't" bullshit if you wanted to play roidswap and roidrace then i suggest that you do so, but the large majority of players want to play PA because it is a war game in war u expect to have loses etc so why not here?
The point is SKs always are and always will be a conscious decision by the player just because they are there does not automatically mean everyone will build them. Any other ship that was less effective would be dropped so since the SK has obvious weaknesses and it really does add nothing to a pure roiding fleet i really fail to see the problem?
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 12:55
|
#79
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
majority of ppl will now build SKs even if they didnt like them in earlier rounds.. why? cos now they got the ability to use em without losing in ETA while attacking(cos they are same class as the main att fleet) and basicly everyone needs em to at least try to retal the SK senders if needed.. or sth. like that..
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
Last edited by Monroe; 22 Jun 2009 at 15:40.
Reason: Language
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 12:56
|
#80
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Sebos u will see the problem when u get waved to death with SKs :P
Leave the Sks in the game, do not remove em or nething, they add quite alot to the gameplay.. but its still insane to have em in att fleets.. :S
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 13:04
|
#81
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebos
PA is a war game for christs sake enough of the "arrrrgh im gonna lose some of my precious stuff lets change it so i don't" bullshit if you wanted to play roidswap and roidrace then i suggest that you do so, but the large majority of players want to play PA because it is a war game in war u expect to have loses etc so why not here?
|
People don't care about losing constructions if they have the possibility to rebuild them fast enough. The problem of SKs used on every attack is that you lose your constructions much faster than you can rebuild them, and it's in no way of problem of resources. I'm against a salvage for lost constructions, the benefit for the attacker destroying your buildings should be to make you lose money, not to prevent you from rebuilding.
I had a fight in a speedgame with a planet, we kept hitting each other with SKs... It takes as little as 5 waves to ruin a planet. The buildings you rebuild between 2 attacks are wipped out with more on the next landing. Before long you're naked. And it was just one on one... We're not only talking of Scanners losing their amps or Dist whore losing their distorters, but everybody, especially early losing his ships factories and not having the time to rebuild them.
And think of races with slow construction like Caths... if you introduce SKs in pod fleets, then all the races have to start with the same construction bonus or at least not such a big difference betweem Ter and Cath.
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
Last edited by Makhil; 22 Jun 2009 at 13:12.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 13:12
|
#82
|
Jazz Maverick
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Well, the thought of someone having all their constructions destroyed by SKs and not being able to retaliate effectively for whatever reason does concern me. For that reason I would advocate making the havoc covert op much more effective than it has been up until now.
That will give the victims of SK attacks another option to avenge themselves, esp. those who find the whole notion of SKs distasteful.
I think this is the way forward tbh.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 13:58
|
#83
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
You realise that we have long been able to send SKs without losing 1 tick of travel? This "change" is barely worthy of the name.
In fact, it would appear that you idiots haven't even noticed that SKs utterly suck now. Here's what'll happen if you hit people who fail to run or who get the tiniest bit of defence
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 22 Jun 2009 at 14:27.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 14:24
|
#84
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 151
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebos
I do love how people have suddenly arrived at the decision just because there is a fi SK that everyone in the game is going to build them, that would imply that the same people would all jump of a cliff if the option was there to do so, not because they were all suicidal but because there was the option to.
OK my analogy might have been a little harsh but you get the picture, its a concious decision to build SKs no matter what class they are the fact they have lower armour etc than most other ships surly means that they will be actually useless when there is defence around and actually cost u value to land. ( i believe JBG pointed this out earlier). To take another analogy we did not see the USA choose not to use the latest military technology in iraq just because the iraqi people didn't have it advocating the removal of the fi SK is pretty much saying "Oh no i am gonna take a bit more losses if i fail to get defence, this game is unfair!!" however i suspect the moment an SK fleet lands on your planet you will not hesitate to return the favour.
PA is a war game for christs sake enough of the "arrrrgh im gonna lose some of my precious stuff lets change it so i don't" bullshit if you wanted to play roidswap and roidrace then i suggest that you do so, but the large majority of players want to play PA because it is a war game in war u expect to have loses etc so why not here?
The point is SKs always are and always will be a conscious decision by the player just because they are there does not automatically mean everyone will build them. Any other ship that was less effective would be dropped so since the SK has obvious weaknesses and it really does add nothing to a pure roiding fleet i really fail to see the problem?
|
Yes PA is a war game that 200 (sometimes including me) or so players take very seriously and the majority play for fun.
We need reasons to keep players not reasons for players to leave.
FACT = fi SK will lead to more SK in round 32 and this will lead to more SK in attack fleets.
With possibly more Xans next round this will mean MORE SK than ever before which will lead to many of the players that play for fun being hit.
Which aint FUN.
More players will leave if this decision is passed
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 14:26
|
#85
|
Jazz Maverick
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
More players will leave if this decision is passed
|
I personally have no intention of playing next round, but I promise you this:
If they create high armor SKs with the same classes as pods, and massively increase the effectiveness of the havoc covert op, then WILD HORSES (tm) will not stop me from signing up a planet!
That would be more fun than a barrel of monkeys with dynamite strapped to their backs!
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 14:28
|
#86
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
If many people go xan than most people, as you state, will use SK, thereby everyone attacks everyone and everyone wins/losses.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 15:56
|
#87
|
respect, unity, order
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 280
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
If many people go xan than most people, as you state, will use SK, thereby everyone attacks everyone and everyone wins/losses.
|
And we'll all end up with 5 fiancence centres, 1 factory of each type and a res lab. Billions of stocked resources because we can't get production out fast enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not directed at MrLobster
Seriously now Comparing structures to Asteroids?
You must really be out of valid points you can make. The moment I can get 25-30 constructions back in a matter of days, I might agree on the analogy you guys put forward.
It's annoying to loose roids, i'll give you that. But if I loose half my roids i can get those back in a matter of days (5-600 roids is more then possible to do in 1 week). if i loose 40 constructions it would take me 6 * 40 /24 = 10 days to get those back. (100 structures, 5 landing ticks = 40 structures gone at 10%) (Technically this means that the round will almost have ended by the time I manage to get my structures back.(6*100 + 6 * 4 = 840 ticks)
Killing off structures can actually be quite fun, and I actually think they could bring in some new dynamics into the game, the current idea just hasn't had enough consideration and is imo only good for players in top alliances (like 1 or 2 maybe) that can manage to cover every wave on them.
First a question:
Does killing structure gain a planet anything? EG. do i get xp if i ruin a planets structures.
Will I be able to get any form of retall when someone lands on me and kills my structures? Will killing their structures reward me?
If you really want SK's to become a part of this game. Fiddle around with some ideas and make it a worthwile tactic. Just like xp whoring, covopping, value playing, ...
Don't set up a round where everyone will include SK's in their fleet, it'll be total chaos:
People that can not get defense will be destroyed into oblivion. (Consider this: those people are the ones not in an alliance, are not one of those 50 lucky people that end up in a top gal or new players that decided to give planetarion a chance)
Scanners will be targetted 24/7. I'm sure the bigger alliances can have the spare fleets to cover 3-4 scanners, I know from experience that fleets for 3-4 planets can dry out a big BG easily)
Ideas to implement SK as an extra dynamic.
1)
Having sk's that can not be a part of a normal soloing attack fleet is the most crappy feature anyone ever came up with. As suggested: provide SK 's for every roiding fleet in every race.
2) Give planets a chance to rebuild lost constructions. (eg: structure xxx has received damage, do you want to repair this?)
3) Reward SK's (small planets getting xp when killing big planets structures)
4) Make SK's utterly expensive + destroyed after a successfull kill.
5) When a factory gets destroyed, is it normal that the ships are suddenly transferred into an other factory? I can see how it could be fun to kill ships in production of a topplanet, even tough as it came at a high cost for your team also (see point 4)
6) As suggested: Higher the bash limit. Maybe even make it as high as 80% of your own value. What is the point of killing structures of a planet 1/5 your value? he's clearly no threat to you.
7) ...
__________________
Together We Stand Divided We Fall
[Ðragons]
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 15:57
|
#88
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 30
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
how does them being in an attack fleet mean everyone will have them? Did terran/zik/cath/anyone with a bs-cr fleet at some stage/your mum have sks in all their fleets all the time?
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 15:59
|
#89
|
respect, unity, order
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 280
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMoose
how does them being in an attack fleet mean everyone will have them? Did terran/zik/cath/anyone with a bs-cr fleet at some stage/your mum have sks in all their fleets all the time?
|
I'd have taken this post serious, but I fail to see how my mom has anything to do with this.
Clearly tough, we are changing the entire SK thing here, can't compare a game where SK 's were just another fleettype to a game where SK's might actually become a viable tactic?
__________________
Together We Stand Divided We Fall
[Ðragons]
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:17
|
#90
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
View Poll Results: Should structure killers be modified for R32?
Yes 49 38.58%
No 63 49.61%
I don't care 15 11.81%
And in the spirit of being an arbitrary dick I'm declaring that sks will stay as they currently are in the stats. Anyone wishing to express their anger at me I would advise to try and structure kill me ingame. I will not be fake-nicking and my r/p will be painfully unsubtle. Good day gentlemen.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:29
|
#91
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
You utter idiots!
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:29
|
#92
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
More SKs mean people will need to pay attention to how attractive their planet looks to attackers, which means we're bringing a long-since dead aspect of PA's strategy back to the game.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:30
|
#93
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Seriously - how long did you have to wait until the "Nos" dropped below 50%? (I notice that they're now back up to 50%).
2 days ago, Cochese posted this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
Stats look good, sk's will get changed whenever JBG sobers up!
|
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:36
|
#94
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
Seriously - how long did you have to wait until the "Nos" dropped below 50%? (I notice that they're now back up to 50%).
|
Well, I had to sign up a few extra forum accounts first....
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:41
|
#95
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
LOL
BTW - sorry about the insult. I (temporarily) forgot that this was the strategy forum.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:45
|
#96
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Good. A decent reason not to play this round. Good luck all.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:47
|
#97
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Dear Diary,
Victory commenced early this round....
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:48
|
#98
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Unfortunately, there's too much truth in that for comfort.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:52
|
#99
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Dear Diary,
Victory commenced early this round....
|
I sure hope that Cochese follows Appocomasters recommandation because this is just another tragic decision that is totally uneeded.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
22 Jun 2009, 17:53
|
#100
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Should SKs be changed for R32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
And in the spirit of being an arbitrary dick I'm declaring that sks will stay as they currently are in the stats.
|
Somehow I thought Cochese had the final decision.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:55.
| |