Xan

[jerome]

and he laughed at me for telling him that in pm :/

[rshih]

this thread is slowly deteriorating without its constant influx of spam

[Blacknova]

Not interested in dealing with trolls (that includes you Martok, since you appear to be even more clueless than nubome here about certain facts)

Jerome, you know where to find me if you want to talk further

Nova

[jerome]

be a big man and admit your just plain wrong.

ps. - martok is clueless about stats? .. (:D)

[Zotnam]

Originally Posted by General Martok

Blacknova, no offence but did I read you were MO for 1up this round? OMG how the fck could 1up have won then.... I can't count the xan FR/DE defcalls I covered with pulsars alone, no xan's gonna loose his lancers for a few roids. Not all alliances can send enough ships for 100% kill, or even 100% podclass kill. It's a matter of making it expensive enough, like Jerome` said.

In general, after reading all posts: you are WRONG and Jerome` and Z00f are RIGHT.

In short: I'd love to see you do DC work in a loosing alliance... You wouldn't cover half the defcalls.

So when someone sends 1 fleet with de and 1 fleet with fr you send only anti de? Interesting tactic. I see his points exactly, and jerome`s replies to them have been more about how he roiding this and that many and how his gal sucked(tbh that subject he never shuts up about).

I am also sure that Nova wasnt always in the winning alliance, and ofc you modify your dc`ing accordingly. In 1up he had the chance to kill inc, so why shouldn`t he? Ppl are affraid of losing ships, its true and any good dc knows that, nothing more annoying than seeing roids disappear just because he got abit of def.. A dc is only as good as the ships he gets pm`ed, the def calls themselfs are easy, it`s the activity, getting scans, waking up ppl... Tho lately I have seen dc`s not knowing the stats by heart and fking up def but that is a whole other story..

With 1 tick combat only, you do make it a bit more tempting to take losses for roids, I know I crash more fleet for roids than I used to I can`t comment too much on combats, as I weren`t involved in them this round, but to me it would make sense to send each class in seperate fleets, tho with no overcapping I guess most went for 2 seperate targets rather than sending 2 fleets at the same target.

As it is, I have absolutely no reason to think we will have more caths next round UNLESS the stats get changed, more than what is suggested here aswell. Prolly a bit less terran, tho alot less 'hardcore' players I imagine, and alot of xan.. Last round it was also going around that there would be alot more zik/cath but... I think the way Nova plays he rather go for 1 big target thus building mainly 1 class to roid with, rather than what I guess most players did, roiding 2 smaller players with different classes. True, you are alot more flexible, but that doesnt have to mean that you will do better You will defo help your alliance more by taking one big target than taking 2 small :P

[Zo0f]

Very few people ever used 2 fleets for Xan Fr/De attacks as if the Terran kept their Co home you couldnt recall the De fleet and still land taking a risk over who pulled/ran etc. The best way was to simply fake the De in the fleet with Fi, hoping the Terran thinks you are suiciding/oversleeping and runs his Co. Something that was just as risky if your target overslept. No-one likes risking their fleet that often as its a sure way to get it killed.

Some people around here just seem to be a little over confident of their own knowledge/ability. Nothing worse than over estimating yourself.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Zotnam

So when someone sends 1 fleet with de and 1 fleet with fr you send only anti de? Interesting tactic. I see his points exactly, and jerome`s replies to them have been more about how he roiding this and that many and how his gal sucked(tbh that subject he never shuts up about).

people used 1 fleetslot like zo0f said etc. Ofc if such variables are altered, a dc must alter his methods and adjust to them. i mainly talked about hypothetical situations, only time i used my own situations was where, I was disagreeing with nova`s analogy of how to roid with xand or what is/isnt possible to roid, and prove it by showing examples. I cba to read back on the thread, but im pretty sure only time i brought it (& my gal) up was after nova put words in my mouth saying 'oh you think your right because your so leet' and i was just being ironic to that:/, if i mentioned it elsewhere then i was just a whiney cnut ;>

[quote]
I am also sure that Nova wasnt always in the winning alliance, and ofc you modify your dc`ing accordingly.

In 1up he had the chance to kill inc, so why shouldn`t he?

its not that, i don`t disagree with

Ppl are affraid of losing ships, its true and any good dc knows that, nothing more annoying than seeing roids disappear just because he got abit of def.. A dc is only as good as the ships he gets pm`ed, the def calls themselfs are easy, it`s the activity, getting scans, waking up ppl

either, but being in a situation where sometimes resources were plentiful compared to what was needed, its hardly right to derive conclusions on what`s right and wrong with the stats over this? Although, as I understand, Nova doesn`t see too much wrong with the stats, but he is apparently unhappy with how terrans are in their design themselves.

As it is, I have absolutely no reason to think we will have more caths next round UNLESS the stats get changed, more than what is suggested here aswell. Prolly a bit less terran, tho alot less 'hardcore' players I imagine, and alot of xan.. [

and you don`t expect people to go cath why exactly ? only race they couldnt have stopped properly in the end was terrans and zik cr (maurs+raiders > scarabs etc.) and if there was to be small amount of terrans (not like 10% but 15-20%) then they don`t have way too much to worry about ie last round. All they will really have to do is mass-spiders and vipers (even though they`ll certainly get mass-fr inc to outflak said vipers, but well, thats one of the cases to get ally def:P) and xands will keep away to an extent and you can still roid em, albeit there`ll be much more bolts & broads etc around, i expect.

Last round it was also going around that there would be alot more zik/cath but

was there? i think most people expected not too many ziks/caths as after all, terrans were going to be in big numbers, and terran de can flak through zik/cath no matter what in the end.

True, you are alot more flexible, but that doesnt have to mean that you will do better You will defo help your alliance more by taking one big target than taking 2 small :P

well you could think of it this way.
planet a has 50% co-roidfleet and 50% de-roidfleet
planet b has same
planet c can cover most of the co and would be very roidable with de if in enough numbers
planet d is hittable with a small co fleet as its smaller than c
planet e the same as above
surely itd make sense to just get planet a+b to team up on a big target and then, both also hit smaller ones simultaneously? It`d also require more def to cover this etc, because losses are spread thus people would probably land for a bit more losses than they would if they were attacking alone
ps. yeah you might not do better but that depends on the def and the value of targs your taking, as the total amount of roids+xp if you get through on 2 targs 40-70% should generally be more than getting through on 1 targ say 110% your value.

btw, all this discussion is fairly irrelevant as apparently stats are being overhauled.

[khaos]

Hmm the news stats seem pretty unfair towards xan...they seem to s-u-c-k now....?

[tauric]

How can you "balance" against all thoose alliance HC"S playing your betas and telling their top players to choose xan, terran, cath or zik.

that is by defenition unbalancing the balance.

if we all choose a race unaware of their shipsstats and spinner did a good job, we unbalance the game with our emotions. I like cath more then xan so i choose cath.
We end up with a universe slightly unbalanced 27% xan 23% cath.

If we let hc's give out advice we end up with a big unbalanced universe 34% against 16%
16% beeing the noobs that didnt read the boards or didnt participate in the beta. From day one in last round i would have put my money on any 16% xan players. They might represent 16% of the gamers but they probably represent more then 16% of experience.
Unbalance in unbalance so to speak.

tweak and balance as you will, but dont give the stats out in advance. And if you need Vicious Sid (a player, a top 1 alliance leader)or any other player, to balance your game then go random.

Tauric

random as in no choice of race and every race limited to 25%

[Zo0f]

Balance in a round is a very complicated issue. As it isnt as simple as the numbers in the stats. Last round each race was about as balanced as they could be. However we still saw rumours about Terran being overpowered and great, due to their fast starts granted from a fast construction among other things. Which made an awful lot of people take Terran, added to the slightly larger than average number that usually go Terran due to them being the default.

While things like that happen, it matters very little wether the stats are actually balanced or not. All that matters is the perceived balance by the players. Which is far harder to balance than the stats!