Score, XP, Value

Originally Posted by WesseH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loz
so you'd lose xp for bashing? seems a little harsh

sorry if thats wnot what you meant i'm not really understandintg trhings atm.

^^well.. one might argue 'a bad experience is still an experience, wether or not it is generally 'accepted' by the environment it occurs in'

having said that, i, like others, very much dislike the entire XP setup. getting score for attacking should come from gains solely.. now.. because simply posting these 2 lines would not help any on the topic..

here is what i would propose...

make XP into EXP -> EXPerience. for every action u take in the game that involves ANY interaction with other players (initiating asteroids/construction/research/production should not be taken into account) u gain a CERTAIN amount of EXP this EXP should then by the players themselves be distributed to certain aspects of their planet/gameplay and the EXP given to these aspects would SLOWLY increase their SKILL on these fronts.. it would kinda be an addition, or replacement, of the current engineers.

For Example: u've made 200 scans, attacked 3 planets exactly twice ur size succesfully and sent 25 intergalactic msg's (ingal communication is simply to essential to be rewarded any further) this would then accumulate to say.. 200+25+150(3x 50, mind u.. EXAMPLE) = 375 EXP points

then say improving ur research speed would cost u 500 EXP points in this branch to improve research 1 20th (3 ticks on a 60 hour research) or 1 tick on 10hrs construction/production time

this way the skilled players can still aquire immense advantage from their activity and their successes, but these 2 factors dont prevent them in any way from being blown down to >100k score (value would become score again, like it was in the past) but with the advantages they have gained from the EXP rewards and their choice of distribution of it they will be able to recover relatively quickly from being wiped out as such (ofcourse EXP should also be made possible to invest in resource generation thus creating extra income bonus)

in this setup any 'sacrificing value(is score) for EXP points could only benefit those who r EXPECTING with a certain amount of certainity to be wiped out.. but then i'd ask u... who here plays to win, expecting to get whacked ? anyone? :-P

ofcourse it should be carefully thought out how much exp is rewarded for various actions, how much exp is required for every possible 'improvement' to your planet and on a number of possible EXP-rewarding actions there may be a cap or anti-abuse-rule needed to prevent 'cheating' (the sending of msg's could for example be capped to 10 msg's a day... any active player will send these msg's then, but the reward for sending a msg could be made so low it doesnt make so much difference compared to those players who simply lack the time to send msg's.. for scan-EXP-rewards it could be made so that only scans u (or your alliance) visibly does something with r rewarded, which would mean scan-EXP is extended once a day at a set time (coz there is always time between making the scan and doing something with it) and likewise more rules may need to be thought up to prevent abuse... but well.. evaluate the general idea first.. specifics r of later concern :-P

Accepts Not!
Also a little thought, Why the hell those double valueed guys can't stop an attack? I mean, Bravery Factor is how HARD will it be for you to cap 1 roid, those who can't cover such waves deserves not their ranks, IMO!

[x-dANGEr]

That was me, BTW!

[WesseH]

might i inquire the purpose of quoting my entire post if ur not gonna comment on any of the content...?

such a waste of space...

[Pinkerton]

How about when a fleet lands you get the current calculation for XP * %ships surviving.

So if you attack and lose half your ships you will only get (XP *.5)

If you are skilled and only lose 20% you will have (XP * .8)...This can be mildly abused by sending superfluous ships to decrease the %lost but that effect may be negligable.

How ever I disagree that the effects of XP on score should be reduced. XP is the game, not sitting and collecting resources. You just need to make XP more of a challenge to accumulate. Or make sacrificing fleets less desirable by something like the above equation. maybe idon't know :P

Or also keep track of total losses over time and add that to the equation. So if through out the game If you lost 80 % of all ships built then that would slow down suiciding for XP.

Current Score calcualtion * %ships lost at current tick

[shik]

im not a friend of much words:
i dislike the idea. would make no more fun.
on the one hand your talking about "losing roids easy makes players quit" and on the other hand you want to change the score formala like that.
doesnt fit together.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Accepts Not!
Also a little thought, Why the hell those double valueed guys can't stop an attack? I mean, Bravery Factor is how HARD will it be for you to cap 1 roid, those who can't cover such waves deserves not their ranks, IMO!

But this is where the impracticality of defending yourself adequately from all 6 classes of pods comes into play. Realisticly, you can defend yourself from about 3 well, another 1 or 2 to a lesser extent, and find yourself completely vulnerable to the final class. Thus, a player who is attacking you with that class isnt actually taking a risk (or much of one) by attacking you.

For example, the three terrans who have sent 750 Battleships to attack me tonight arent taking much of a risk - as i dont have any Peacekeepers.

However, the two caths who are waving me who sent some 8.5 CO ARE taking a risk, as i have quite a few Vsh - and if they take roids then they should be rewarded more than the terrans imo.

[Makhil]

I see no problem with the current score-xp formula. The problem is:
1. you can't attack people with high score-low value
2. rankings are based on score, which may seem unfair to those who try to attack and preserve their ships

Keep the formulae as they are but :
- base both 'bash limit' and 'ranking' on the value/score average (that could require to make the special Zyk ships 'die' after they've stolen something...)

[flikman]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

In the end of the round value will determine who wins, not XP. Those going for XP early in the round will have little chance of winning. I'm not convinced the system is broken. Don't be too eager to exchange a working system for something new. It might be fun to test this though.

That's my opinion for the current round, and the reason why a Zik should win. But I think Kal's changes can only be a good thing.

I think it is vital that XP is attainable for other actions than roiding though, to again intensify the gameplay.

Fleetcatches might be even more fun with XP ?

[Ultimate Newbie]

Tbh, in principle, i like the idea of providing incentives for smaller players to attack larger ones and cap roids from them to gain score. In that regard, i dont think the system is broken. I agree with an earlier post (i cant seem to find it now - it might be in another thread) that suggested reducing the armour on Pods, so that they are easier to kill/stun thus reducing the number of roids that a small player can steal, in addition to reducing the frequency of a small player succeeding (cos atm its far too high imo). Furthermore, reducing the armour of pods increases the requirement of having sufficint flak to cap roids - more flak means that player have the incentive to have more ships in their fleets - which increases the emphasis on value. This is ideal, as you have a situation where you need value to cap roids, but to gain the most you need a well structured fleet and a vulnerable target - however attacking players who are only a little bit bigger than you (and succeeding) will still be rewarded. There will be far fewer instances of lemming raids like there are now (lo Benneh ).

[flikman]

What if XP and score were abandoned, and it was all value ?

[Appocomaster]

No.
XP was brought in to reward more than building ships, and to encourage more interaction (so we had a less boring game ). I think XP is necessary, it's just that a balance is needed

Typical PA, add a supposed feature that benefits the cheating scum who will exploit eveything they can to win. Xp is a farce like so many things in the PA programming. Big scores on planets with no roids or ships that haven't really played the game. This round is already a farce. The score reflect the ability to mass suicide consistently and not be hit or taken down because attack limits are set on value. Well, I won't be winning the round as I can't stomach cheating. And since the rules of pa will NOT be enforced on an obvious game exploit, once again the exploiters will win another round of PA.

AND BTW did you notice how many of the supporters of the existing flaw said they are freely using it? OFC you didn't :/

YOU ADMINS never get it do you. And the player base shrinks again.

After all the rounds of pa, old round pa is making a slow steady comeback on several clones.

Stop unbalancing the game. A well balanced game means that all these whining sh*teheads will have to develope real game skills, not game exploits like they've been doing. It would mean an active thinking player would always have a chance to come out ahead. Now only scum in violation of the game rules will win. It is inevitable.

Kill XP now and rollback the cheaters score ENFORCE the EULA or frankly I'll never believe a thing you say again ( and you can't legitimately close any planets for any reason if you don't enforce the rules all the time). Not that I do now its patently obvious even without spinner you can't get it right.

Just sign me sick of the crap factory

[Makhil]

wow man, you have balls...

[jerome]

Btw did you notice how many whiners are the ones who are being beaten by this feature?

If you cannot accept the game then kindly **** off. Don't change the game to suit you. The rest of us changed our game tactics so it would work with the features, if you want to play the boring-ass routine we've all done for years on end, go cuddle a shitty clone. Of course if there are cases of xp-farming, then sure that's cheating, but no worse than roidfarming and should be subsequently closed & deleted.

The amount of flaws in your assertion of what you believe xp is, showcases a) your idiocy b) why you are likely being beaten by those who aren't as retarded.
The flaws as follows, firstly, YOU ARE THE WHINING SHITEHEAD YOU MORON. Secondly, since when has attacking people above your value and getting through been cheating? Thirdly, 'real game skills'? you mean, ability to roid? oh right, because people do not have that when they gain xp.. YOU NEED TO GAIN ROIDS TO GAIN XP. Those who suicide their whole fleets for xp will slowly get what's coming to them anyway. Don't blame the game for what your apparently meagre mind cannot forsee.

Oh and the reason you won't be winning is probably your lack of ****ing balls to take a challenge to it's throat as instead of 'showing real game skills' as you claim, you just whine.

Edit: Apologizes for the extra-harshness in this post but I'm quite sick of the collective whining.

[Squishy]

Tbh i have not a huge problem with the XP expoits im beggining to realise its the only way that the other races can compete with the ziks score wise.

But i still say what needs changed is the way the bash limit is worked so that the XP players can still be hit. As its fair enough to get score this way but to be untouchable by the rest of the top players is crazy.

[jerome]

As crazy as it is when someone manages to max-cap on someone 4x their value?))))

If anything, the people who let themselves be xp-whored by miniscule value-wise planets, should be laughed at heavily, certainly not what you're suggesting.

[Squishy]

em its kinda hard to stop people suiciding on ur planet with pirates.

They get max cap, u get their BS, their untouchable

So how can this be avoided?

Alliance and gal defence doesnt always come so even if u have the fleet to take them out it doesnt matter as they still get max cap

[Brimstone]

Here is a slightly different idea.

Keep the existing formulas (though i would like to see a revision of def XP, as i believe it should be just as worthwhile as attacking)

And heres the interesting idea...

Base the bash limit on your XP, or XP/Value ratio (dunno, whichever works best).
-This means you can hit a wider variety of targets, big and small.
- It keeps the benefits of attacking the bigger players.
-Allows removal of XP whores.
-Protects the new players, as bigger/experienced players cant touch them.

I dare say there's a flaw in that somewhere, but it seems more logical than some other suggestions, and a hell of a lot easier to understand.

Brimstone

[Squishy]

Brimstone thats such a good idea

i would like to point u HERE

Noone else seemed to like my idea tho

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Squishy

em its kinda hard to stop people suiciding on ur planet with pirates.

They get max cap, u get their BS, their untouchable

So how can this be avoided?

Alliance and gal defence doesnt always come so even if u have the fleet to take them out it doesnt matter as they still get max cap

Why should it be avoided? What, you want zik to be perfect? There are statistical flaws for each race, and zik has theirs too. Hay, I'm a cathaar and I'm easily roided too, let's make radical changes to adapt the game to suit it personally for me!

[flikman]

XP is the bane of this game.. this round in particular.

Theres no point defending, cos if u get battered you have a better value/enemyvalue ratio, so even more XP for you (to the cap), and it allows u to cap more roids again without being fat.

I've seen many high scoring planets with poorly balanced fleets, some even just the class of their most useful pods. and it doesnt matter to them because they never need to def, and only a fleet catch will (temporarily) hinder them.

This is one reason why I think alliances such as NewDawn who did well last round are struggling. They aren't suited to this all out attack play where being an alliances is irrelevent except for organising attacks

[Banned]

Originally Posted by flikman

Theres no point defending, cos if u get battered you have a better value/enemyvalue ratio, so even more XP for you (to the cap), and it allows u to cap more roids again without being fat.

But if you don't defend, your enemies get XP, which in turn means they're using the unbalanced tactic against you. We're all going to die in a swirling spiral of exponential gain XP. Despair I tell you, despair!

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Squishy

em its kinda hard to stop people suiciding on ur planet with pirates.

They get max cap, u get their BS, their untouchable

So how can this be avoided?

Alliance and gal defence doesnt always come so even if u have the fleet to take them out it doesnt matter as they still get max cap

If you have enough Pirates there will be other targets that are better.

[Squishy]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Why should it be avoided? What, you want zik to be perfect? There are statistical flaws for each race, and zik has theirs too. Hay, I'm a cathaar and I'm easily roided too, let's make radical changes to adapt the game to suit it personally for me!

I didnt say it should be avoided i also dont see why they should be laughed at heavely.

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

If anything, the people who let themselves be xp-whored by miniscule value-wise planets, should be laughed at heavily, certainly not what you're suggesting.

[jerome]

Because they got roided by people 4x smaller?

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Squishy

So how can this be avoided?

Sortof implies that you did want it to be avoided.

[Ultimate Newbie]

What about a formula that is like:

Score = Value + (((SQRT(Attacker Value / Defender value) * 10)*(#capped roids))*50^n)

The SQRT of the attacker value and defender value reduces the extremes and brings it more into the centre. I think this was mentioned or suggested somewhere above (or on the previous page even).

more important in the variable n. i dont know exactly what n would be, however this is how i envisage its effect:
n makes the score value such that by attacking someone ~4 times larger than you (example), you achieve max XP gain. HOWEVER, attacking someone greater than 4 times your value, your score gradually decreases (rather, the gain is less than it otherwise could have been, to a point where there was no reason to attack someone that much larger than you anyway).

Now you might say, that wont stop people from attacking small value, high score planets in the top 10. That's true - however such a change will lead to a general increase in the value of small value/high score planets, as it is less desireable to be as small as possible because there is a limit to how high you want to attack. Thus, more value generally = possible to be hit by more non-ziks in the universe (obviously, ziks have too much value to count).

So, what do you reckon about that?

[jerome]

Ok, as it seems many of you still are raging on about this.

Please explain to me why oh why, YOU'RE TRYING TO FIX SOMETHING THAT ISN'T BROKEN

if you cannot cover incoming from planets half or even less the value of you, well then tough shit, to be rather frank. The excuse held by ziks of 'suicidal xp-whores'as support for changing the formula is utter bullshit since EVERY race has ultimate flaw(s) which causes it to lose roids no matter what, unless you receive def.

[Painy]

The main reason i think this round that a lot of people are suiciding there fleets is because zik steal ships so there stolen ship means they get a lot more value then the other races so say a t10 xan with 1mill value and then theres t10 ziks with like 3mill value so even the t10 players can get decent xp from the ziks u just have to have a right fleet which is why lots of people are suiciding fleets because ziks are massive in value.

So what if instead of changing the formula it was made so that the ships what zik cap means they don’t get any extra value for them meaning that people wouldn’t be getting such big xp boost from them.

Another thing that could make the game interesting is ships that zik cap there is a certain % chance that they blow up due to ziks not being able to maintain them as well as they can there own ships. or as someone else said the zik ships which steal a certain % chance that the ships which steel actually get blown up in the process of stealing.

Honestly I think if you simply changed that you get less XP with the more percentage of your fleet that you lose it would solve the problems.

Defending would help since the person would lose ships and not get all the xp so for alliances this means attacking and defending helps more than it does not. also xp is an indicator of a successful attack. losing tons of ships would make it less beneficial to suicide.

just put in a value of fleet loss tagged on to the current formula, it would keep an active attack rewarded gameplay that people should appreciate.

[Brimstone]

soz squishy, didn't spot that post...

But isn't it funny how everyone is ignoring it still? Always the way... a perfectly good idea gets ignored, while the utterly stupid ones get argued over endlessly.

Brimstone

[jerome]

Brick walls have never been so fun!

[Brimstone]

well you say that, but i once had this very interesting conversation with a lovely red-head. Was older than i would usually go for, quite a hard exterior, but crumbled after some careful probing...

maybe XP should be calculated from targets score, not value. That would mean that people with high score but low value would be targeted more frequently for the bravery factor. This would also prevent people suiciding themselves in the long run.

Oh the more I think about it, the better the idea seems...

[Squishy]

This is a sorrta extension of what i said

Except would mean changing the combat engine. The best and simplest way is to keep every thing the same except change the bash limit to XP as apposed to value

This solves a lot of problems making it less profitable to go XP whoring whilst still making it a viable opion


I would apreciate it if peeople could tell me why a bash limit bassed on XP would be a bad idea as i personally cant see any draw backs. You woudnt have it the same as just now the exact calculations would have to be worked out but this seems to solve all problems without creating any unless im missing osmthing

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Squishy

I would apreciate it if peeople could tell me why a bash limit bassed on XP would be a bad idea as i personally cant see any draw backs. You woudnt have it the same as just now the exact calculations would have to be worked out but this seems to solve all problems without creating any unless im missing osmthing

Well, what i was arguing about before in the other thread (even though i was thinking of score, not XP ) would still apply - you could have really high valued planets who go for low score (ie low XP) who could then freely hit newbie who also have low XP but still be able to send a fleet that is like 400 times larger and own them outright - gain more roids at tiny XP expense and then continue to own newbies with massive fleets getting dirt cheap roids (and high value would translate into high score and thus rank, but still low XP).

I thought that would have been immediately apparent - perhaps i overlooked something or i still dont understand :\.

[jerome]

Noone 'goes' for low xp, it just shows your character in attacking.

Squishy: I've not even looked at your ideas or any in this thread. I've yet to be convinced why something that's not broken should be meddled with.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Noone 'goes' for low xp, it just shows your character in attacking.

Foolish.

I've yet to be convinced why something that's not broken should be meddled with.

Its obviously not broken, it could do with a little tweaking so as to remove some of the more rediculous instances from the game - such as using a square root.

[Makhil]

XP whoring is a myth. It requires balls for a small attacker to take a target 2 times his value, and such a big planet must be a bit dumb to allow for such a hole in its def. And i don't see how suiciding your fleet can get you any XP as you get them for capping roids. If anything, the pods armour should be tuned down, no need for major tweaks.

[Squishy]

I worked it out yesterday 100 Leviathens on any of the top ziks woul gain u near enough max cap and a huge XP boost. And if alliance defence is a bit thin. Which it is with most of the fighting going on between the alliances this means that a smaller player can get a supreme jump just for killing all their fleet.

So please well me why the top ziks are dumb?

Originally Posted by Makhil

It requires balls for a small attacker to take a target 2 times his value, and such a big planet must be a bit dumb to allow for such a hole in its def.

[Appocomaster]

atm the XP / score setup is needed for other players to keep up with ziks. Obviously if XP weren't so beneficial, less people would be suiciding, meaning ziks wouldn't have so many ships and therefore would have lower value.
also, alliance / galaxy defence is needed, as a fair fleet can get through planets 2x your value. It's not that they have "balls", or that the target planet is "retarded" to leave such a big hole in their fleet.
If you want to limit XP gain, or change it, perhaps introduce XP for things like defence, and make it easier to get XP other ways as opposed to just attacking. Zik probably need to be slightly downgraded somehow with relation to how well they steal, because at the moment they're not as hard as they perhaps should be to play.
I'd like to see a squareroot somewhere in the relationship between score and xp, even if the formula is some variation on score = value*xp^(1/2), or score = value*(c + xp)^(1/2), as Bashar suggested earlier in this thread.
This round is a nice round, but perhaps it is too extreme in an attack orientation. I'm not sure as to other's opinions on this. If it weren't for the balance of alliance setups, blocks and otherwise, I think that it'd be a much worse round (e.g. the FANG/MISTU/Phraktos block a few rounds ago), and a clear winner / set of winners would grow much more quickly than perhaps necessary. I don't think that an emphasis on defence (or the dropping of XP in relation to attack) would necessairly be a harmful thing.

[jerome]

Squishy, why don't you please understand that every race can be roided in a way or another, it is no excuse for scapegoating xp-'whores'*.

Sovereign: Removing sqrt's from formulae?.. Please point me exactly where they're featured in the xp formula.. (or did I misunderstand and you wanted to implicate sqrts?)


*OMGLOL ROIDWHORES GAIN TOO MANY RESOURCES FROM ROIDS LOLOL LET'S REDUCE THE INCOME OF ROIDS POST EVERY 1K ROIDS

[Makhil]

the problem for suiciding fleets on zyk comes from the zyk, not from the score system. Give zik stealing ships a reasonnable initiative (before the pods), make some of them (if not all) die when they steal >> you get rid of suiciding pods and of huge value for ziks.
The score system is the best i've seen so far in the 11 rounds i played (dunno about round 1 and 2)
I understand some people like the old system when you just had to stock ships (a bit like a sim planet game) and bash small planets for free roids.
To make everybody happy maybe there should be different rankings :
the best value, the best score, the best XP. You'd have more winners and less whinners.

once again the problem is not in the score formula, it is in the way rankings are determined.

I was re-reading the proposed formula change by Kal and I think it is a great improvement. Things still essentially stay the same with the current system only it encourages people to try and have a high value, which would make the game much better when people are playing with more ships rather than lemming runs and sacrificing value.

I still highly favor factoring into the xp gain the amount of ships you lose or maybe % of fleet loss so that people are encouraged to attack tacticly trying to find vulnerable targets not just suiciding on ziks who have steal initiatives after pods.

with the change it keeps everything the same except encouraging value. coupled with xp being more rewardable if you lose less ships then if you are wiped out (obviously it takes more "skill" for the earlier). and lastly I think we should do something in order to keep the ziks closer in value to everyone else to make a more dynamic game play so that both ziks are not monsters with tons of fleet and also so that they can benefit from xp gains due to value differential.

If Zik steal ships exploded upon steal or there was a malfunction rate where stolen ships blew up in combat sometimes this would still make a Zik the more diversified and advanced race to play since you will still have multiple races but it would prevent from mass fleets of multiple races which leads to values 3x higher than the top alliances average scores, which i think is one factor pointing that in order for next round to be more fun and dynamic we need to make some changes.

I also read a thread and agree that Cat's need some strengthening and so on. In all if we take these changes, as we have before, and improve them it will only make for a better round.

1. Kal's score formula
2. less xp for losing your fleet when capping roids

side...

1. cut down on ziks value so they play with xp and value like others
2. strengthen cat as being talked about in other forum
3. im not sure of it but maybe looking into the slow initiative of terran tho i honestly dont think this needs changed the more i think about it since they have such heavy armor yet the low initiative is a big factor in battles between experienced people leading terran to be sometimes useless in situations. But i think some minor tweaking could help a better gameplay.

This may be a bit simplistic but wouldn't making pods more expensive help with this problem?

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by SpacedMonkey

This may be a bit simplistic but wouldn't making pods more expensive help with this problem?

No. I assume you mean that attacking etc becomes more expensive. What would be better than making pods expensive, which is probably more true to the intention of your line of thought, is to reduce their armour instead of making them more expensive. This means they have less armour / cost (especially less than the 'flak' ships) and so makes it relatively more easier to stop the pods in attacks - so you don't have to kill / emp all the other ships first before you stop the pods capping.
This was I think mentioned in this thread or the attack / defence thread already. :-)


TBH, if the forumla is changed to something Kal suggested at the beginning, I still think that making xp exponentially more important is a bad idea - making it's inverse exponentially important is better, as it means that it takes comparitively more XP to progress step by step, rather than less.

e.g. assuming value is contant and the forumla is some sort of score = value*xp^2 (1) or score = value*xp^(1/2) (2),

with (1) a change from say 10 xp to 20 xp, and from 100 xp to 110 xp, the same increase is far bigger than with (2). i.e. with (1) 'xp whores' attack more and more, and value is far less important in score than with (2), where as you get more and more xp it doesn't make so much of a difference, so value is still important.
Basically, as long as the transformation of XP in relation to value is > 1 ( i.e. (xp)^y, where y >= 1) you're not solving the 'xp whore' problem which this thread is set up to solve.
This is why I'm far far happier with something along the lines of Bashar's formula:

Originally Posted by Bashar

I would agree with using XP as a multiplier somehow, but I don't like that particular formula. A better option I feel would be one that multiplied the value by XP directly, but where the higher the XP, the less effect it had.

e.g. score = value*(1 + Sq_Rt(XP+5000)/100)

It's a fairly shit formula too, but it demonstrates the type of thing I would aim for. It means XP doesn't give you exponential growth, but it is still worth having, and the more XP a planet gets, the less effect more has, which stops XP whoring. It also makes it more beneficial for smaller people to attack with losses than larger people, so the bigger planets get more of a challenge, and the smaller planets get a chance to get into the game easily. The bigger you get, the more skill you need to get bigger. This to me is the sort of direction XP should take.

(with or without the value added to the value*xp term)

[ElvenStar]

just a thought and a quick one at that ...

currently the system is you get more xp for having less value and suiciding your fleet

i saw somewhere that
xp = roids stolen * ( defending planets value / attackers value )

how about

if ( defending planets value lost == 0 && attackers value lost == 0 ) {
xp = roids stolen * ( defending planets value / attackers value );
}elseif ( defending planets value lost == 0 ) {
xp = roids stolen * ( defending planets value / ( attackers value * ( attackers value lost / attackers value ) ) ) ;
}elseif ( attackers value lost == 0 ) {
xp = roids stolen * ( defending planets value * ( defending planets value lost / defending planets value ) / attackers value ) ;
}else{
xp = roids stolen * ( defending planets value * ( defending planets value lost / defending planets value ) / ( attackers value * ( attackers value lost / attackers value ) ) ) ;
}

so if i was 500k in value and i attacked a planet with 1mill in value and he ran his fleet and i capped 100 roids
xp = 100 * ( 1000000 * ( 0 / 1000000 ) / ( 500000 * ( 0 / 500000 ) )
that is 100 * 1000000 / 500000 = 200 xp
same senario as above but he stayed at home and i lost most of my fleet
xp = 100 * ( 1000000 * ( 1000000 / 1000000 ) / ( 500000 * ( 300000 / 500000 ) )
that is 100 * 1000000 / 833333 = 120 xp
basically you get less XP if you get killed and more if you kill however that needs tweaking so big players done score as much of lesser value planets so add a /2 to the defenders side that makes defending benifical and attacking worthwhile not XP whoring

sorry for the code
thats just my 2cents

[ElvenStar]

oh and while i am here , i said from the preview beta's that ziks were to overpowered ...
i play a zik ... did in the betas have done every round except 1 ( where i played a cath ... silly move ) and will do every round that i play to come

the only way to tone down the zik is to alter their targeting so it makes it harder for them to send defence and easier for them to get defended against having said that if you were to do that you would have to make stealing happen before roiding

oh and corsairs > *
:-)

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by ElvenStar

currently the system is you get more xp for having less value and suiciding your fleet

This suicide thing works only on ziks (with only zik ships) because they fire after the pods... people can come up with complicated formulae, we will all be impressed, but just make the Zik stealers fire before the pods... is it too easy ?
For the rest, people getting XPand score because they attack bigger planets is great. I'm seeing big Zik taking smaller planets the closest possible to the bash limit and it's definitely not the kind of PA i want to play in the future if this behaviour was to be rewarded.

[ElvenStar]

well this round has 2 different tactics ...

1 for zik ,
bash smaller planets and suck up as much fleet as cheaply as possible for least loss

2 for everyone else,
suicide 90% of your fleet on top 10 cap as many roids as possible and gain XP but loose most of ya fleet so ya value drops down below that bash threshold