Oh come on...XP formula..

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Oversleeping normal people who by any chance might loose their inet access are retards, or if you send a fake fleet and they cant cover it, so they send fake def and kill you, still retard? I guess that makes you abnormal then

XP whores crash thier fleets. Then with thier low value they can whore some more, they don't lose thier XP score so in the end they can 3 fleet when they feel like getting online and still win. How is that normal? Its only normal in the mind of XP whores, and it seems pa crew.

all the middle ground crap won't work for a fleet crashing whore.

we will have another round of XPloits - PA crew is adamant.

They will push this till it kills the game so they can prove they are right.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Appocmaster, all you need to do is test this formula. Once it is tested you will prove 'something' right. You might pick up on an error in your formula or have a smug grin on your face at the end, but at least then it has been tested and people will know.

Quite frankly if that's all that's required for good customer relations, I don't see what the problem is on the other end, however much I utterly agree with the formula.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by merlin1955

XP whores crash thier fleets. Then with thier low value they can whore some more, they don't lose thier XP score so in the end they can 3 fleet when they feel like getting online and still win. How is that normal? Its only normal in the mind of XP whores, and it seems pa crew.

all the middle ground crap won't work for a fleet crashing whore.

we will have another round of XPloits - PA crew is adamant.

They will push this till it kills the game so they can prove they are right.

No. Who will they crash on? Players with double their value but a fifth their score? Other xp players who don't have enough roids to give the sufficient score boost? WHO?

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by merlin1955

XP whores crash thier fleets. Then with thier low value they can whore some more, they don't lose thier XP score so in the end they can 3 fleet when they feel like getting online and still win. How is that normal? Its only normal in the mind of XP whores, and it seems pa crew.

all the middle ground crap won't work for a fleet crashing whore.

we will have another round of XPloits - PA crew is adamant.

They will push this till it kills the game so they can prove they are right.

Please read some of the posts in this thread, namely the ones that aren't repeats of yours.

[Treveler]

I think three ppl have asked and still no answer from Apocco. In what direction do you want pa to take. Do you want pa to be mainly xp or value based, or something in between? Do you want the xp strategy to be a valid strategy for winning or is your intention for it to be a "not quit" feature.

I think ppl will want to know what direction pa will take for the comming rounds and make a decision based on that info if they are to keep playing or not.

I am at least...

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by merlin1955

XP whores crash thier fleets. Then with thier low value they can whore some more, they don't lose thier XP score so in the end they can 3 fleet when they feel like getting online and still win. How is that normal? Its only normal in the mind of XP whores, and it seems pa crew.

all the middle ground crap won't work for a fleet crashing whore.

we will have another round of XPloits - PA crew is adamant.

They will push this till it kills the game so they can prove they are right.

Get a clue. As an XPwh0re I found it damn important not to crash my fleet. How would I rebuild my fleet when I didn't have resources due to 5-10 waves per day? Crashing the fleet would be shortsightet. You'd have a nice gain the day you crashed it yes, but the next day you wouldn't be able to attack. Crashing the fleet is only nice on the last day when you don't need your fleet anymore.

Keeping my fleet alive was one of my main objectives, especially as I was cathaar.

As I've understood it, max XP is now reduced to 10x (correct me if I'm wrong)? If r16 had been 1 or 2 weeks longer there would almost be no XPwh0res in top10, if any. With 10x as max I doubt we'll see XPwh0res in top10 unless round is like 2 weeks long.

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Appocmaster, all you need to do is test this formula. Once it is tested you will prove 'something' right. You might pick up on an error in your formula or have a smug grin on your face at the end, but at least then it has been tested and people will know.

Agreed, if this can get some testing it will make me(and a lot of other people) a lot happier and we can see where we stand with the formula

Originally Posted by Zh|l

I'd rather this round was delayed than for it to go horribly wrong.

I would agree here as well, please do this

[qebab]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

For about two weeks. Three tops.

Are you so sure about that? For a certain period, only prioritised people will get defense, and the rest will have to provide that defense. These peoples fleets will grow very slowly, and a lot of those people will be disheartened because they can't keep onto their roids. Then they will suicide their defensefleets, and convert to a xp-centered playing style. To a much larger degree than last round, because there will be much more xp-whores from the start this round (seeing as the success xp had last round, and partly uproar from this thread, and the new formula). I'm not hundred percent certain how it will play out, but I don't intend to risk my sleep for a valueplaystyle, when I am pretty certain that the chance I would do well in any account is extremely low.

Activity should be rewarded, in my honest opinion. The game does not reward activity enough, and to be quite frank, I found it extremely dull last round. What is the point of war anymore? What is the point of defense? Your alliance will probably do better if it does not participate in any wars, and the top players will be players who send no defense at all (it has often been this before too, true.) The game is evolving, and I am stagnating. This game is not for the likes of me anymore

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

As far as I see it, the XP players are still earning more score per day than a value player.

Going by jackie's example, yes.

So long as they can find 3 fat targets that are unable to defend against their pod fleets, with equal or higher score and twice their value every day, never get piggied, hardly ever lose ships, never get defended against and capture about 4,100 roids per week at good XP (last round's top roider, gmufc, managed 2,250ish per week), then XP players should still find it easy enough to outscore a value player on a day to day basis.

Appocmaster, all you need to do is test this formula. Once it is tested you will prove 'something' right. You might pick up on an error in your formula or have a smug grin on your face at the end, but at least then it has been tested and people will know.

I do agree, this formula should definitely have been tested first rather than just thrown in, if just to placate people. Personally, I think it's very interesting and should work out very well. It pretty much guarantees an XP whore won't win the round. For example, for most of last round, JBG would have had to hit top 10 (score wise planets) every night to even get 40% of the XP gains he was getting...

[XelNaga]

OK, now, after AppocoMaster explained why he changed the formula, I can see that it's (very little) better than R16. But you can hardly call it an improvement.

This post is aimed at everyone, especially AppocoMaster.

I will proceed to a comparison of both formulae. Since the question is not only "will this formula resolve the XP issue", but also "is it better for the game than the formula in the BETA"?. Quite frankly, my personnal oppinion, based on facts and mathematics, is that the BETA formula was a really really huge step forward for Planetaion, and the recently introduced formula is therefore a huge step back again, since it hardly makes a difference compared to round 16.

I will call the formula used in the BETA "the beta formula" in the following text, and the formula probably used in Round 17 now "the new formula". And I will proceed by trying to find all problems related to XP or no-XP we're facing in PA, and comparing both formulae in their efficiency to solve the problem (or even make it more or less bad).

So why was XP introduced again? To keep players.


1) XP as a solution to the shrinking player base:


All in all, this is the main argument most people base their pro-XP propaganda on. But is it reasonnable to think that XP supports the playerbase and keeps people playing? There are different groups of people concerned:


The XP players:

They certainly are the loudest part of the PA players, always annhilating everyone on the forum that doesn't like the idea of XP. Since _THEY_ can keep playing quite inactively and still achieve a lot. I dare to say they are a minority, but XP may keep those in the game.

The returning players:

Players that come back to PA for the sake of what it used to be, which happened a lot in Round 16, were shocked by the way it turned out. Most of them wouldn't mind XP to go away completely, coming back for the love of a hardcore game. Their feeling is that a big fleet and many roids express power, which is what this game should be about, and which is what should decide the ranks.

The new players:

There are several types of new players. Most of them don't have the ambitions to achieve high ranks. They just build ships, try to get roids, or even just sit there and defend their galaxy. Mostly, they don't even know what XP is or what it does. And they can't bother with it. They wouldn't mind if it was gone at all, since they play the intuitive way for fleet and roids.

The alliance players:

In my opinion, this is the vaste majority of what is left of this game. By alliance players, I mean those that play the game with their community, inside the game, not only in IRC. Those who cooperate in attacks as well as defense. Those who want to achieve something in the ranks, those with ambition. Those that sign up the first days of sign up during a new round, those that are willing to have sleepless night for PA. These are the people that keep PA going, and these are the players that make the playerbase drop round for round. Why? Guess yourself. Some of them want to get rid of XP completely. Most of them want XP as an addition to the normal, intuitive playstyle, that gives you a benefit for what you achieved during the round, but not as a way to play the game. Most of them DON'T like the current formula. And READ THIS, for me, alliance players is players with a community and interacting INSIDE the game, not outside.


This is all based on my experience and the people I met, but if you want numbers, real facts, make a survey through email, I'm really sure they will confirm my view. So all in all, there are more players quitting because of the way XP is right now than staying. And it certainly doesn't apply to the majority of new players, which should be the target of any solution to grow or maintain the playerbase.

This of course doesn't really give the advantage to any XP formula, but I dare to say that the beta formula certainly fits more players, and thus solves this problem better.


2) The XP 'whoring' effect or 'teh XPloit':


Many people keep arguing that XP whoring should be a viable way to play the game. I say no. It should be a completion, and addition to the normal, intuitive style, that _ANY_ new gamer will play. There shouldn't be 2 different groups of players, that most of the time don't even interact.

The XP part universe is very chaotic. If you want to compare it to a picture, it's full of small dots that just connect randomly (attacks). There is absolutely nothing exciting, nothing intersting. Nothing spectacular happens.

The value universe, though, is lots of small dots, for a huge part connected together with green lines (alliances), interacting together with red lines in very complicated ways. Compare it to the nerval structure of the brain, of the structure of the Inet. Sometimes suddenly, a huge group of dots changes all of the connections and in a chain reaction, the whole universe will react. It's dynamic. It's fragile. It's endlessly exciting.

And here is why both can't co-exist: the value universe needs players. There already is a shortage. By playing an XP way, you set yourself apart towards mid-round, you practically leave the game. You are worth as much as any inactive account, you don't participate in the universe, you don't interact, you leave the system. The only thing that makes you better than a player that left is the money you pay for your credit. It doesn't help the game _AT_ all. I dare to say, XP players don't think about the community, they only care about themselves.


All in all, the new formula makes this possible to happen again, artificially lowering the number of planets again, making the game even worse for the other players, making even more quit. Whereas the beta formula actually connects XP to the survival factor. And it will get more and more difficult to survive an attack without enough value, up to the point where it will be impossible. You have to find the right balance between value and score, you will have to grow with the others, while still trying to max the XP. It makes XP the addition, the completion to the intuitive style it should be, instead of another way to play the game.

I ALSO WANT TO ADD at this point, since many people argue on this point: this would not annhilate the 2 different strategies of XP or value. It would just not make them two completely different way with their own game dynamic. It would make them part of the same game dynamic, making it possible for everyone to interact, while XP playing would still require less effort and time, but would also be harder to master and lunlikely to achieve a really top rank. It wouldn't mean at all that everyone has to play exactly the same way.


3) The suicide issue:


Quite simple: the new formula allows suiciding for XP, mainly against Zik, again, while the beta formula would have solved it.


4) The TOP 100 problem:


This is the only point where the new formula actually is better than the Round 16 formula. Yes, it will be very hard, maybe impossible, to play at the top for XP. But the same goes for the beta formula, which just unites both playing styles in a single one, making the universe one. The new formula makes it two seperate parts again, who both compete for the same ranks, while not being able to interact or influence the other part.

Whereas for other ranks, the new formula doesn't change anything, since it's logaritmical (is that the word), while the beta formula is linear in that aspect and affects all ranks, and balances them all out.


5) The testing factor:


The beta formula was tested in the beta, it worked well, and I didn't hear one single person moan about it. It seemed like everyone was happy, really. Many people even saw it as a huge step forward and were looking forward to a great round. These are the players that want to quit and get a refund now. The new formula wasn't tested. It still has all obvious flaws for the universe dynamics the old formula had, in fact, there is almost no effort to change the huge list of problems XP brings for the game dynamics, except for the TOP ranks. Actually, I thought and hoped it was an April's fool. The beta formula did a very good job in finding new basements for XP that would allow the game dynamics to find a nice balance between XP and score, AND it was tested for it and approved for it. Why change a formula that promised to many improvements and was tested, for a formula that's so much more controversial and untested? Only because it is easier? Shorter?


6) The defense factor:


Making XP an as easy way for midrange planets as value, if not easier and more profitable, the majority won't have defense ships. The majority won't defend. The majority will not support an alliance-oriented game. The majority can't help their value mates for top spots. XP whores won't bother to defend themselves. They don't need to. Defense will again become a waste of resources under the new formula, considering the small XP you get for defense won't change anything.

The beta formula took this into consideration. IF you defend, and kill the majority of the attacking fleet, not only will you lose less roids. But even if the attacker gets 25% roids, he will get less XP for them. Which makes defense MUCH more effective. If you keep defending against XP whores, they can't grow. Not even against Ziks. Defending finally becomes a strong weapon against XP whores. Defending becomes a strong weapon gainst anyone. The game comes back to a community based platform, where cooperation is worth more than anything else.


7) The attack factor:

As XP player, you have to pick your targets smart in many ways, that's true. But with the survival factor, it gets even more difficult, and for everyone. Since defense becomes a VERY important factor, it was a really good move to motivate attackers to still try to get through. So you get a bonus for landing an attack against a lot of defense. This means we will actually SEE huge landings with many losses on both sides. It will bring back the huge battles we used to have, the epic battles that everyone remembers from the good old times.

The new formula: pick target launch, scan, figure out if he fakes or not, if you still get max roids, recall or land. Launch again. How exciting.


8) The XP whore vs XP whore scenario:

This will be possible with any formula, any time. Two XP whores can mutually exchange roids, as long as XP depends on roids. It's a basic problem of XP, not of any formula.



I know my structure is very bad, because actually, I'd have to work on this for hours since it is a far deeper and far more complexe matter than anything that has been said here, and it actually is the main reason for the changes in the playbase, in both directions. I'm gonna add points to this post in order of appearance, I'm a bit too unconcentrated to continue writing this now. But there is no argument in hell that the new formula is better than the beta formula.

I'm not even arguing against XP, I just think both ways, value and XP, should be combined into a single way that benefits alliances and the community that keeps this game going, instead of seperating players more and more into 2 different categories, making both quit in the end and new players not stay either. It's a huge unbalance in the current game dynamics, caused by a good idea which was badly employed, and which created a group called XP players, that is really loud on this forums, but doesn't do this game and this community any good. Unfortunately, Appoco seems blinded by that idea and seems to think XP whoring is the future of PA?!? Please, revert back to the beta formla, make both ways one, for the sake of PA, and stop seperating the community, it won't do the game any good if you have 2 different game dynamics that don't interact in a single universe. The way of XP alone has no future, it will lead to everyone 3-fleeting alone. XP needs to be merged with value, to get a way where cooperation is the most important thing, even if you can be less active.

The beta formula was a really huge step in the right direction. Maybe it wasn't perfect. Maybe it would need tuning, also in other parts of the game. But it was a huge improvement. If you don't revert to the beta formula, and use that new formula, you throw away a great future for PA for its death. You will cause more damage to this community that was already seperated so much. And at some point, you won't be able to save PA anymore. I don't know when this point is reached, but it certainly ain't that fare away.


AppocoMaster, please, revert back to the beta formula and give it a try, you most certainly won't regret it.

[jerome]

qebab: activity is still rewarded as value playing is once again clearly more profitable.
xelnaga: "loudest mouths"? what? hahahahahaha oh the hypocritic brilliance of it all!


honest to god, why don't you people understand it's actually nigh on impossible to succeed (end ranks wise) as a 'xpwhore', why aren't you satisfied? the only real plausible way is if there's 100 odd 'dedicated' other xp planets to farm off for the whole round who'll have similar score to you. who is going to risk and hope that others are gonna xp whore instead of going and playing it as everyone has previously in terms of value play.

achilles: i have no idea what your point is with regards to people not wanting defence or won't want to build def ships 'now' as it really isn't any different to previous rounds where value ruled the roost, using the old xp formula by the way.

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by jerome

qebab: activity is still rewarded as value playing is once again clearly more profitable.
xelnaga: "loudest mouths"? what? hahahahahaha oh the hypocritic brilliance of it all!


honest to god, why don't you people understand it's actually nigh on impossible to succeed (end ranks wise) as a 'xpwhore', why aren't you satisfied? the only real plausible way is if there's 100 odd 'dedicated' other xp planets to farm off for the whole round who'll have similar score to you. who is going to risk and hope that others are gonna xp whore instead of going and playing it as everyone has previously in terms of value play.

achilles: i have no idea what your point is with regards to people not wanting defence or won't want to build def ships 'now' as it really isn't any different to previous rounds where value ruled the roost, using the old xp formula by the way.

If you would f*cking read my post instead of posting on the first thing you can find against me, you would know WHY I'm not satisfied with the fact xp-whores can't finish TOP 100. It's not about ranks, it's about the damn future of the game, and you should _REALLY_ read before posting.

I said if you want facts and numbers about the "loud minority" part, they shall make a PA survey for every player available on the frontpage, which he must fill out before being able to continue playing. With 4 simple answers:

"new formula"
"beta formula"
"don't know/care"
"no xp at all"

New formula will be less than 5%. This is what I said in my post, too, if you want facts you have to ask the customers.

You don't seem to have any respect for me and what the effort I put into that post. But I guess you don't care anyways.

And if you think everyone that dislikes the game because of XP comes to this forum, you're just really narrow-minded. Most people quit silently. They're just gone, without every visiting this forums. Why do you think the number of players keeps shrinking? Every round, more than ten times the amount of players quit because of XP than all pro-XP posters on this whole forum together. It's a reality, and if you want PA to keep going, maybe you should start to face it.

And the most fantastic thing in your post is how you attack me personally again while I was trying to be really objective on the matter. It just shows how poor your basis of arguments is. I wasn't even arguing against XP, I was arguing against the new formula compared to the beta formula, which would be a great compromise for both sides, instead of just going on to defend your own side for your own good all the time.

This is the one and only reply I will give to people like you, all others can refer to it, I won't let myself drag down into flame and unobjective fights again after I put so much time into a decent objective post.

[Tyroka]

I don't like the fact that the new formula hasn't been tested, it's bad practice. Not needed to test is not a good thing to say*.


But the new formula doesn't look that bad, XP-wh0ring will be viable for about half the round but after that value-players will gain in on them and I'm pretty sure they will catch up (if not the XP-players gets lots of help from others).
My hope is still that PA-team do some sort of testing (if not already done but doesn't seem like it), but after some calculations I think this formula will work pretty good.

(My guess is that the one winning will have pretty high value in the end but starting out XP-wh0ring a bit.)


* The failing factor in Ariane 5 didn't "need to" be tested either... although Ariane 5 was a very special case and don't have much in common with this it still says something about the necessity of testing.

[jerome]

nah, i have respect (or something) for you as you seem to put a lot of effort into thinking about the game (in some way). that being said,

surveys like that won't prove much - it's always the minority who make decisions, people are always influenced by the loudest mouths etc etc..

also, the satisfied thing wasn't referred to you, it was to posters previous to you who were claiming xp > value still.

i didn't address your post because i didn't really need to and generally agree with the main drift of it leading to this sentence: "I just think both ways, value and XP, should be combined into a single way that benefits alliances and the community that keeps this game going"

[furball]

jerome's gone and made a thoughtful post. Hurrah!

I totally agree with jer's sentiment.

Originally Posted by jerome

"I just think both ways, value and XP, should be combined into a single way that benefits alliances and the community that keeps this game going"

Absolutly. I believe that both should be avenues to succeed in Planetarion, but to succeed with either should require the same levels of skill and activity.

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by jerome

nah, i have respect (or something) for you as you seem to put a lot of effort into thinking about the game (in some way). that being said,

surveys like that won't prove much - it's always the minority who make decisions, people are always influenced by the loudest mouths etc etc..

also, the satisfied thing wasn't referred to you, it was to posters previous to you who were claiming xp > value still.

i didn't address your post because i didn't really need to and generally agree with the main drift of it leading to this sentence: "I just think both ways, value and XP, should be combined into a single way that benefits alliances and the community that keeps this game going"

Then excuse me for being a bit rude.

The survey will proove something if everyone that paid for the game has to vote in order to continue to his in-game interface. Default option "I don't know" of course. IMO it would be the best way, but it's too late for that unless they delay the round, which would be a good idea, too.

[Stoom]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

...

While I agree the new formula should've been tested, I still don't understand why you think it is still worth it to play solely for XP. Since it clearly isn't. (Also I haven't heard anyone who is going to 'XPwhore')
Also a survey? I doubt the majority of people 'understands' the formula, hence making the results near to useless.

[JonnyBGood]

Xelnaga's post is quite on-the-ball with a few exceptions. Most of the people he imagines to be xp players are not, had no intention of and most certainly won't be after this formula xp players for this round. As regards suicide, it's not mainly zik, it's only zik. Who the hell suicides on a non-zik for xp? Also it's much much more difficult this round, as your score goes up you have to hit better planets. Why can't people see how this works

As regards the formula in general I think this is objectively an improvement. The previous formula would have been exploited so much during the round it would have been laughable. At least this formula is vaguely comprehensible to new players. Finally yes xp whores can still exchange score. But they're better off playing for value. I really thought this was what people wanted and I imagine appoco did as well.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Hehe, the lord almighty. You don’t need to have been a horse to become a good jockey and you don’t need 10 rounds of lower ally experience to have contact with new/returning players. I find several of them in my gal every round. I have yet to hear one of them claiming to keep playing because of XP. In fact most if not all has no clue what xp is before we tell them, and when we do 90% of them find it to complicated to bother figuring out how to utilise it.

They want roids and big fleets so they can roid others with roids and big fleets. And if they lose those roids and fleets I would say the blow is equally big today as it used to be back in the days as they still end up with no roids and no fleet. Strange huh?

As it is now I would say xp does far more bad then good for PA overall.

Actually what that shows is the fact that since p2p people playing this game have on the whole become more short sighted and self centred. XP isnt a difficult idea to, in fact at its lowest level its pretty simple as its "Bash people smaller than you = Less Score gains, Hit people bigger than you = More score gains". Most people can get their heads around such a simple idea and teaching them how to run their bcalcs so that they can work out their losses and compare it to the gains to decide if its worthwhile isnt hard.

The simple fact it seems that your galaxy cba to put the effort into new people whom land in your galaxy (which has become the norm really, any galaxy with experiance in it will almost always exclude new and unproven people) and the fact their alliance is failing to teach them the fundementals of the game so they can maximise their enjoyment (Any half decent training alliance will be teaching their new players to maximise both ways of play to acheive a balanced style of XP and Value thus preparing them to play either way if needed)

And yes you may not have to be a HC of an alliance whom gives these kind of players a chance to come across them but without being so your coming across a tiny percentage of the amount others have and you havent neccesarly seen players whom have had some effort put into explaining the game to them. And tbh your interaction with them post P2P and pre PAX was probally limited anyway due to private galaxies so you have probally been masked from the effects somewhat.

Go and ask the HC's of those training alliances that called it a day since P2P why they disbanded their alliances and two of teh top reasons will come out as
1) Players were being bashed out of the game at a rate higher than more new players were coming in so keeping a stable membership base was tough
2) They couldnt build up a solid command core because people got sick of the endless struggle so went to a more elite alliance where things were easier and more fun

While both these things still happen today and they can still be problems they occur at a much lower rate than before as any alliance that does a fair amount of training will tell you (two have already through me and furball)

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by Stoom

While I agree the new formula should've been tested, I still don't understand why you think it is still worth it to play solely for XP. Since it clearly isn't. (Also I haven't heard anyone who is going to 'XPwhore')
Also a survey? I doubt the majority of people 'understands' the formula, hence making the results near to useless.

First, it is still worth it, because except for the really top ranks, nothing changes much. And, zzzomg the majority of players doesn't play in the rop ranks. But in fact, that wasn't what I've been saying. I said the formula for R17 is not going to solve the deep problems the whole XP issue brought with it when it was introduced, and responsible for a huge player loss on both sides of the conflict over XP.

I really doubt that many people that don't know the game already pretty well pay for it. So actually, I really doubt you are right on that point, too.

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Xelnaga's post is quite on-the-ball with a few exceptions. Most of the people he imagines to be xp players are not, had no intention of and most certainly won't be after this formula xp players for this round. As regards suicide, it's not mainly zik, it's only zik. Who the hell suicides on a non-zik for xp? Also it's much much more difficult this round, as your score goes up you have to hit better planets. Why can't people see how this works

As regards the formula in general I think this is objectively an improvement. The previous formula would have been exploited so much during the round it would have been laughable. At least this formula is vaguely comprehensible to new players. Finally yes xp whores can still exchange score. But they're better off playing for value. I really thought this was what people wanted and I imagine appoco did as well.

Well, maybe you're right and we won't see any big number of XP players. That being said, I still think, for many other reasons, the beta formula would have been a huge improvement for PA in overall. And I don't think there would have been much abuse with it.

And what I think is, if enough people decide to XP whore, the top XP planet will still constantly cap 5xp per roid by exchanging roids with other XP players, while the others cap even more, which still makes it pretty much viable way to play an important role in alliance average scores, imo. But I guess the round will show, that's why _testing_ should have been done before using a new formula.

And suiciding on another planet as in losing 80% of the attacking fleet but still caping 25% roids (or maybe less) for full XP. You're right, that's not suiciding. But that's what I meant.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

And what I think is, if enough people decide to XP whore, the top XP planet will still constantly cap 5xp per roid by exchanging roids with other XP players, while the others cap even more, which still makes it pretty much viable way to play an important role in alliance average scores, imo. But I guess the round will show, that's why _testing_ should have been done before using a new formula.

The problem with this scenario is that it doesn't take into account where the roids come from. Usually PA requires pyramid structures. Last round, the roid swapping XP players generally also attacked low score/high value targets to keep roids in the loop. However, this is no longer viable. No one will want to be the one that attacks the low score players after the XP players start drawing away on score compared to their targets.

I foresee there being many players going for XP early on, only to find it impossible to keep up with the value players who have managed to cap and hold onto 2-3k roids. Early attacks can give good gains (20 xp roids), but if you plan on doing well in the long run, you're going to need to have good value to be able to continue hitting ripe targets.

Personally, I think the formula should be even harsher on low value/high score players. I think that score should be replaced by score from XP only. This way people with low value/high XP don't get their targets value counted in both factors.

[Paddy]

The thing that (in my opinion) most people don't seem to understand is that with this new formula the amount of the xp will be between 1/4 and 1/2 of what it was last round at the top end and between 1/2 and 3/4 of what it was lower down the rankings. Along with xp being changed from *60 to *50 in the score formula it doesn't take a genius to work out that playing for xp will be far less beneficial anywhere in the rankings than it was last round.

I will agree that the formula should have been tested before it was introduced but I do think that it is definately an improvement on the "beta formula". Whilst the beta formula did solve a few problems, people suiciding for xp for example, it also hardly reduced the amount of xp in the universe, as, believe it or not, the majority of xp players last round rarely, if ever, suicided their fleets while capping roids. There are obviously some exceptions to this (as Idimmu pointed out) but with the beta formula I could still see r17 being an xp dominated round.

With the new formula I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of xp players in the top 100 and I'd put good money on there being non at all in the top 10.

The strangest thing about this thread to me is the people who have been saying the beta formula was better than the new formula and have then said that there shouldn't be xp in the game at all. This new formula will result in there being far less xp in the universe than if the beta formula was used, yet people argue against the formula but for no xp at all.

[XelNaga]

I argue for the beta formula because it would simply make defense much more important, which as a whole, would benefit alliances and the community.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Banned

The problem with this scenario is that it doesn't take into account where the roids come from. Usually PA requires pyramid structures. Last round, the roid swapping XP players generally also attacked low score/high value targets to keep roids in the loop. However, this is no longer viable. No one will want to be the one that attacks the low score players after the XP players start drawing away on score compared to their targets.

I can't put enough emphasis on this as the reason why xp whoring will actually fail once a significant portion of your score is in xp (I'm thinking like 75%).

[Appocomaster]

beta server is up and starting in 14 minutes - http://beta.planetarion.com/login.pl

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

beta server is up and starting in 14 minutes - http://beta.planetarion.com/login.pl

Tick speed?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

Then excuse me for being a bit rude.

The survey will proove something if everyone that paid for the game has to vote in order to continue to his in-game interface. Default option "I don't know" of course. IMO it would be the best way, but it's too late for that unless they delay the round, which would be a good idea, too.

Mass polls of anything to find a general concensus about something are pretty much worthless due to the fact that the public are idiots. Now before you start taking this personally like some did when furball said something simerlar let me explain.

When I say the public are idiots i'm not meaning you all individually but rather I'm talking about the group together. The main problem with any group is us as human beings are easierly swayed or persuaded somethings true with very little evidence being shown. A good example of this is the when PA went P2P, some people started talking about how it was a ploy by Spinner to make lots of money and then run off with it, they had no actual evidence but the theory spread through the community like wildfire and the amount of people whom believed it was immense. Even when Spinner posted the facts and tried to explain everything they wouldnt listen, they had made up their minds that Spinner was a going to run off with the money and that was it. If we had run a poll on them at that point asking "Is Spinner Trustworthy" these unresonable people would have skewed the results but you wouldnt know that was the case as all you have is predefinded responce

Thats where the forums excel, most of you are posting you views with valid justifcation. This justifcation is what helps validate peoples responce as it shows if they are being rational or simply jumping on the bandwagon without thinking about it.

Also in PA history there has been a situation where the 'public' has pretty much forced a change, this came at the end of r3 and imho did PA alot of damge in the long run. At the start of r3 Fury, Legion and RB took advantage of the option we had to stay in our r2 galaxies so as to create some 'private' galaxies for themselves. Along with the fact that organisationally these alliances were vastly supiorier it helped Legion and Fury basically tie up the round easierly. In responce Zeus decided to put up a poll on the idea "Should we have private galaxies for all". The support was overwhelming, no doubt the members of the likes of Fury and Legion saw how it would make them even stronger, however the worrying believe doing the rounds was that it would allow your average joe in a weak alliance to really challenge for the top. It was this fact alone that brought so much support and even though there was a small group of us pointing out that it actually made most alliances easier to take out completly and fairly effortlessly as well as the fact it would weaken the community by making it into many closed communities rather than one large and vibrant one where everyone mixed they wouldnt listen and kept posting "I like it as it will let me win". These useless and uninfomed comments flooded the results and pretty much helped push Private galaxies onto us. If it had instead been based on listening to those informed views the decision would have been alot less clear cut and the end solution may have been alot more balanced than it was

All in all Mass polls are bad for making decisons on

[wakey]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Xelnaga's post is quite on-the-ball with a few exceptions. Most of the people he imagines to be xp players are not, had no intention of and most certainly won't be after this formula xp players for this round. As regards suicide, it's not mainly zik, it's only zik. Who the hell suicides on a non-zik for xp? Also it's much much more difficult this round, as your score goes up you have to hit better planets. Why can't people see how this works .

Its a problem we had with him in F-Crew last round. He has built XP players up to be the big bad and it often clouds his judgement somewhat. For example he would often argue with TSP that XP players were

* Less Active
* Less Skillful
* Sent Less Defence
* More Selfish

However in TSP's case he was

* More Active than Xelnaga
* Regually landed on much touger targets than Xelnaga so showed more skill
* Sent More defence than Xelnaga
* Declined defence so it could be used on a more important defence (and so he could also then send his ships to defend someone else)

In fact in general F-Crew's XP players were sending considerably more defence than our value players as they werent all hung up on losing a few ships where as the Value people would throw a fit if they might lose 10 ships.

I think this kind of highlights why so many people hold XP players in such bad light, because they see a couple exploiting the system to the max they assume everyone is even though most will defend, are active, arent selfish and do show alot of skill

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by wakey

Actually what that shows is the fact that since p2p people playing this game have on the whole become more short sighted and self centred. XP isnt a difficult idea to, in fact at its lowest level its pretty simple as its "Bash people smaller than you = Less Score gains, Hit people bigger than you = More score gains". Most people can get their heads around such a simple idea and teaching them how to run their bcalcs so that they can work out their losses and compare it to the gains to decide if its worthwhile isnt hard.

Xp isn’t a difficult idea but to a newbie it must seem meaningless. You have no ships and no roids but you gain a lot of "void" score. Last round I spent A LOT of time explaining the xp system in detail to 2-3 newbies in my gal. I showed them fleet composition of the biggest xp planets, I showed them what targets they picked and why they picked those targets and I showed them how to search for targets that would maximise their xp. They all understood it they just didn’t want to play that way or, at least, didn’t play that way for whatever reason.

The simple fact it seems that your galaxy cba to put the effort into new people whom land in your galaxy (which has become the norm really, any galaxy with experiance in it will almost always exclude new and unproven people)

You keep repeating the same bullshit round after round. No one with half a brain would exile an active new player who joins irc and wants to interact with the community. These kind of random players are the dream of any decent gal for obvious reasons.

And yes you may not have to be a HC of an alliance whom gives these kind of players a chance to come across them but without being so your coming across a tiny percentage of the amount others have and you havent neccesarly seen players whom have had some effort put into explaining the game to them. And tbh your interaction with them post P2P and pre PAX was probally limited anyway due to private galaxies so you have probally been masked from the effects somewhat.

Pre Pax I was pretty much a newbie myself or at least up until r7.

Go and ask the HC's of those training alliances that called it a day since P2P why they disbanded their alliances and two of teh top reasons will come out as
1) Players were being bashed out of the game at a rate higher than more new players were coming in so keeping a stable membership base was tough

Players quit at a higher rate then they joined but that has all to do with p2p and (next to) nothing to do with being bashed out of the game. (And the fact that pa wasn’t as new and exiting anymore) Pa had a declining memberbase since p2p was introduced and it stabilised a bit under 2k and I’m pretty sure that would have been the case regardless of the introduction of xp.

They couldnt build up a solid command core because people got sick of the endless struggle so went to a more elite alliance where things were easier and more fun

While both these things still happen today and they can still be problems they occur at a much lower rate than before as any alliance that does a fair amount of training will tell you (two have already through me and furball)

As the influx of new players decrease the need for training alliances decrease. How strange...

And easier? You should follow your own example and have a round or two as a top player in an 'elite' alliance. I doubt you would find it easier.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Treveler

You keep repeating the same bullshit round after round. No one with half a brain would exile an active new player who joins irc and wants to interact with the community. These kind of random players are the dream of any decent gal for obvious reasons.

I have limited experience of this but the one time I started my planet fairly late, in r13, and exiled shortly after tick 72, landing in the then #1 galaxy I was quickly exiled on despite the fact I turned up on irc within about five minutes of joining. Obviously the #1 gal is an extreme example and r13 is a while ago however this remains to date my only experience of the situation and I can imagine that for many new players that would have been a fairly disheartening experience, I think I ended up in like the rank 150 gal when I got exiled. That round was hilariously worse as regards exiling due to the fact I think you got a one-time-only exile shot though.

[Treveler]

Well there are always exceptions and wasn’t r13 the round with the exile flaw? Where you more or less could decide what gal to land in? Either way there will always be some selfish bastards who cant see longer then their own nose tip.

[Appocomaster]

Well, the first beta round - which was practically a speedgame, with fast ticks that usually force people to play for xp - showed value players doing far better. We'll take it slightly more slowly now and see how things go with another session starting soon.

[Skyff]

weeeeeee I can post again! ty JBG

I did some calcing back when the beta formula was still in effect and tbh from what I could see it solved nothing.. but maybe I messed up my calcs I dunno.
This new formula atleast makes xp whoring for top spots infinately more difficult, which is at the very least a good start.
Appoco have you ever considered adding the survival factor to the current formula?
sorry if you'¨ve already answered this, 4 pages contain a lot of posts cant say I read them all

[JonnyBGood]

What a lot of people are doing incorrectly is just calculating off certain situations without giving sufficient thought to whether or these situations can actually arise during the round.

[The_Mad_Keg]

Not all XP players run off in a desperate attempt to suicide, last round the first 26 xp attacks i launched all landed, with the loss of roughly 1-200 cath frigs and 43 spids, not exactly mass slaughter. In the end i did start crashing my fleets, this was because with college and various other things i kept sleeping in or on two occasions actually completely forgot about the game thanks to early morning wafts of bacon in the house. These crashes got me very few roids and generally lowered my score.

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by wakey

Its a problem we had with him in F-Crew last round. He has built XP players up to be the big bad and it often clouds his judgement somewhat. For example he would often argue with TSP that XP players were

* Less Active
* Less Skillful
* Sent Less Defence
* More Selfish

However in TSP's case he was

* More Active than Xelnaga
* Regually landed on much touger targets than Xelnaga so showed more skill
* Sent More defence than Xelnaga
* Declined defence so it could be used on a more important defence (and so he could also then send his ships to defend someone else)

In fact in general F-Crew's XP players were sending considerably more defence than our value players as they werent all hung up on losing a few ships where as the Value people would throw a fit if they might lose 10 ships.

I think this kind of highlights why so many people hold XP players in such bad light, because they see a couple exploiting the system to the max they assume everyone is even though most will defend, are active, arent selfish and do show alot of skill

Your post is simply utter bullshit, I don't really know what you want to show with it and why you bring it down to a personnal level yet _AGAIN_, but to me, all you show is that you're really not worth discussing with, since you can't keep up on the same level. And now that might sound arrogant, but zzzomg I don't care. And YOU my dear, are part of that loud minority, which you clearly demonstrated in that post.

[XelNaga]

And now sorry about those 4 posts, I really didn't intend to spam, but I don't want to let this personnal bs interfer with the discussion in this thread, so if you want to delete all off-topic flames, go ahead mod, this post contains what's topic-related.

JBG: I understand you are saying the new formula is a better solution than the beta formula, as does Appoco. But I fail to see you pointing out where the beta formula has its weakness? I know the new formula will make XP playing impossible in the top ranks, and therefore solves one big issue for many people.

But that's not the only point, and the beta formula to me looks like solving more problems, and everyone who keeps saying "no" doesn't give any example of why not, any serious issues with the beta formula?

My main concern is the removal of the survival factor. It would give the game new dimensions, simply because defense would become more crucial. Now, you will have to defend, but if you can't cover it, all defense gets recalled, never mind. But with the survival factor, there are many many shades of success in an attack an a defense. Even only killing one not-pod class would make the defense effective, as the opponent would gain more score. The whole attack-defense gameplay would become much more dynamic and deeper, in my opinion, and from what I calculated and see as facts.

So let's shift this from "beta formula vs new formula" to "survival factors vs no survival factor", that hits the point better. Why shouldn't that be a part of the game? Where does it have disadvantages for you? I'm not saying there are none, I'm just saying I can't think any relevant factors, so you might want to point them out to me.

[JonnyBGood]

I didn't have too many objections to the survival factor. Mostly I disliked the defence factor because I felt it was open to abuse. I think the survival factor is on the money. In general this really limits the concept of suiciding for xp except you can use it for a one time score boost at some point during the round. A lot of people don't realise how difficult it was suiciding for xp and gaining enough resources to rebuild the entire fleet in time for the next attack. Any slump downwards in the effectiveness of ziz or rise in the cost or decrease in the average number of roids likely to be capped leads to an exponential decrease downwards which can only be stopped through non-xp playing, albeit temporarily.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I have limited experience of this but the one time I started my planet fairly late, in r13, and exiled shortly after tick 72, landing in the then #1 galaxy I was quickly exiled on despite the fact I turned up on irc within about five minutes of joining. Obviously the #1 gal is an extreme example and r13 is a while ago however this remains to date my only experience of the situation and I can imagine that for many new players that would have been a fairly disheartening experience, I think I ended up in like the rank 150 gal when I got exiled. That round was hilariously worse as regards exiling due to the fact I think you got a one-time-only exile shot though.

I was in that gal and don't remember seeing you

But then I did exile in late too. It was a shit gal with no alliance spirit whatsoever, they were hell bent on being #1 irrespective of the costs to thier alliances. It was a fence sitting haven.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I was in that gal and don't remember seeing you

But then I did exile in late too. It was a shit gal with no alliance spirit whatsoever, they were hell bent on being #1 irrespective of the costs to thier alliances. It was a fence sitting haven.

I was in and out in less than 12 hours if I remember correctly. It does go to show that there are players, and galaxies, like that still left in the game.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

Your post is simply utter bullshit, I don't really know what you want to show with it and why you bring it down to a personnal level yet _AGAIN_, but to me, all you show is that you're really not worth discussing with, since you can't keep up on the same level. And now that might sound arrogant, but zzzomg I don't care. And YOU my dear, are part of that loud minority, which you clearly demonstrated in that post.

It wasnt a personal attack on you XeINaga, you just happened to be the person whom was spouting the "XP Players are shit and dont contribute" and the person I could use as an example of why your argument is flawed and simply based on a few cases and not on XP players as a whole.

You and alot of players whom are calling for a value only game are demonising XP players based upon a small number of examples (In your case you always cited your couple of top100 friends that you claimed were logging in 10mins a day). It seems to be players like you arent comfortable with change, especially when the change is somewhat different to every game of this ilk and your ignoring the fact that a large number of people whom benifit from XP put in a large amount of effort also, in many cases MORE than alot of supposed value players.

Now if your going to start spouting crap about "Value is better for defence and thus alliance communities" but you fell well short of many XP players contributions then your just asking for someone to use you as an example when they are making a point so I suggest you stop complaining.

To sum up what i'm trying to say and which most peoples seemed to get as the pos repped me for the post "Value supporters have an irrational fear of XP and are letting this cloud their judgement somewhat. XP was too strong last round and everyone acknoweldges that but half of the issues you lot attach to XP dont show themselves in most XP players cases. The forumula change seems to go along way to solving it without the issues that the beta one was perceived to have"

[robban1]

"XP Players are shit and dont contribute"

seems like your pals isnt any good xp players if they waste a fleetspot for def. so are they xp players or just too lazy to play for real?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by robban1

"XP Players are shit and dont contribute"

seems like your pals isnt any good xp players if they waste a fleetspot for def. so are they xp players or just too lazy to play for real?

Surely 3 fleeting would make them more lazy? And surely using your theory any value player whom sends defence is also either a poor Value player or Lazy if they send defence as they are risking value by doing so which isnt a good use of their ships?

You can play for XP and still have a desire to help your community out. The two things simply arnet mutually exclusive. Infact i would probally say that this is where you get the difference between XP Whores and XP Players. The whores are probally in the minority and its probally the case that its about their own gains soley so 3 fleeting is what they do, XP players however are willing to sacrifice a fleet to help out on defence and such like.

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

But I fail to see you pointing out where the beta formula has its weakness?

But that's not the only point, and the beta formula to me looks like solving more problems, and everyone who keeps saying "no" doesn't give any example of why not, any serious issues with the beta formula?

The main weakness with the beta formula imo was the defence factor thing. This would have had virtually no effect on any genuine defence. It takes less than 3x the value in clippers to kill an entire terran bs fleet so landing on defence that is 3x your value is never beneficial, unless none of it targets you. The only positive I can see in this is that it encourages faking but it also encourages hitting planets that you know won't run, as that there will be more than 3x your attacking fleet in value at the planet when you land.

Another issue with the beta formula was that in the vast majority of cases it wouldn't have stopped people getting any more xp than they did in r16, meaning xp whoring would again almost certainly have been a very strong tactic. As has been stated earlier in the thread, the majority of the highest ranking xp whores didn't suicide for xp and therefore the survival factor wouldn't have affected the amount of xp in the game. In fact at the higher levels the only real difference between the amount of score from xp using the r16 formula and the amount of score from xp using the beta formula is the change from xp*60 to xp*50.

What I can agree with you on is that the survival factor would have been a nice feature. I'm not sure how easy this would be to incorporate into the new formula but it did make the game slightly more intuitive, ie you can't suicide fleet and gain score.

The only real downside is the effect it has on certain races. Terran (and zik) would generally get less xp than other races due to often having to lose a few ships to get roids whereas cath (and xan) regularly get free roids due to their low initiative and high dam/cost meaning they would get more xp than the other races. It would also cause cath to get more incs as players landing on cath with no defence are virtually guaranteed 0-loss roids.

Overall I think the new formula is better than the beta formula but that survival factor would still be a decent idea to have in the new one. However because of the huge decrease in xp in the game due to the new formula over the old one it isn't a huge necessity.

One final suggestion (and I haven't done a huge number of calculations on this) is to consider what would happen if the new formula was changed to:
bravery factor = 5*(min(2,[target score]/[your score]) + min(2,[target value]/[your value]))

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Well there are always exceptions and wasn’t r13 the round with the exile flaw? Where you more or less could decide what gal to land in? Either way there will always be some selfish bastards who cant see longer then their own nose tip.

I think your probally find that its a little more common than you think tbh. Certainly in the top50 alot of the galaxies will dispose of an active if their score isnt right, from my experiance of being in a few galaxies that did that the GC and ministers normally justify it as "they are too small to be anything but a hinderence atm and take up a space that could be filled with someone larger and more suitable" (A view I do kind of understand, some untried low scoring person isnt a certainty to be an asset and if you keep them thats potentially a high scoring person whos exiled from somewhere else whom would be alot more useful especially if your challlenging for a top spot)

There are some GC's whom will soley judge players on activity only and will give people a chance to prove they are active, get on IRC and even help explain how to to get on irc and these people need applauded as they dont get enough credit but theres as many (and it gets worse the higher you go up the ranks) whom dont give any real chance if you dont meet a certain score level.

Last round did however see a bit of an improvement from what I could see, the fact people had to wait seemed to make a bit of a difference and had people being given more of a chance which was obviously a good thing

[furball]

Last round I was GC of a top 20 galaxy. We had a few active newbies join, I sent them off to training alliances and generally tried to help them as much as I could. We weren't perfect but we tried our best.

[XelNaga]

Well, after the recent beta, I have to admit the new formula actually really works well. What the round has to show is what effect it has on the alliance wars dynamics.

And maybe in the beta for Round 18 you could add the survival factor to the formula to test that? Since it's clearly to late for it this round.

Oh well gl in Round 17 everyone.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by wakey

You can play for XP and still have a desire to help your community out. The two things simply arnet mutually exclusive. Infact i would probally say that this is where you get the difference between XP Whores and XP Players. The whores are probally in the minority and its probally the case that its about their own gains soley so 3 fleeting is what they do, XP players however are willing to sacrifice a fleet to help out on defence and such like.

i thought we talked about t100 here, even a value player is an xp player with that definition you had so and xp player is a crap valueplayer and ofc a crap whore, you cant go both ways

[Banned]

Originally Posted by robban1

i thought we talked about t100 here, even a value player is an xp player with that definition you had so and xp player is a crap valueplayer and ofc a crap whore, you cant go both ways

TSP was top100 in r16.