40% Rule and 25% Caps

[BasiltheCat]

I would like to see this raised to about 55% to give smaller planets a fighting chance. I know a few people who have left the game due to being continously attacked by large planets roiding right on the 40% limit. If that is an unpopular suggestion how about lowering the cap limit to 15% or basing the amount of asteriods cappable on score differential. My last suggestion will probably me the most unpopular and that is reducing the fleets from 3 to 2, this may slow down the game to much.....what do you think

[Jester]

I don't think shouldn't let the top100 planets attack anyone at all.

[BasiltheCat]

We need someway to balance the game more, I just feel 40% is to low.

[Zahrim]

There needs to be a spread in the statistics that allows big planets to attack people, but also allows little planets to recover more quickly when hit by people they cannot defend against.

Some ideas
1)Increase salvage in some proportion to the value of the attacker to the defender. Eg: If the attacker is twice as big, salvage rate goes up 10%

2)Target rich environments.... increase dammage done by smaller fleets on larger fleets based on cost. eg: Your corvettes target cruisers, if there is twice the value of enemy cruisers compared to your corvettes, increase the dammage by 5% of the corvettes under the assumption that the corvettes don't have a problem dealing dammage to so many enemy ships. Continue to increase the 5% interval for every 100% mismatch in ship values.

The point is to allow big to attack small, but to give the small a break the bigger their enemy is.

[wakey]

I dont think the roid cap needs reduced, after all its not like roids are hard to get back. Losing roids in itself isnt the problem, its when planets dont come for roids but rather to bash either so they can come back later or simply cos they are stupid and cba to work out what was needed so just sends everything and hopes.

As for raising the 40% attack limit, i'm also unsure how much this really helps. While the addition of a bash limit was good and did help a bit at the level its probally exceeded the point where its most effective now. Rather than keep rasing it until we get to a point where we all have about 5 people we can attack there needs to be something that doesnt force you to attack people of a certain size BUT instead encourage you to do so

As for reducing fleet slots, while there are pro's to that theres just as many cons. For starters two fleets leaves you with a problem of really only having one fleet to use. If you use both you risk leaving rest of ships as sitting ducks. This means that defence becomes hard becuae you can only attack or defend not both. And if you decide to use both fleets this could very well mean sending more ships than normalsimply to esnure yiu dont leave ships as sitting ducks which could make bashing worse.

Theres other cons also and ultimatly this means that theres really no benifit to reducing fleet spots as the benifits are wiped out by the side effects

[Gerbie]

I get roided every few days and I'm doing fine. I just run my fleet when they attack and I don't have defence. Maybe we should have an option where we can devide the base fleet into a fleet in hangars and a fleet on patrol. Ships in the hangars don't participate in battles and ships on patrol will try to engage the enemy. That way if you go away for a long night you can put your ships in the hangers and at least have the ships in one piece when you return.

[BasiltheCat]

I think this round has ended really quickly so anything that can slow the game down a bit to me is welcomed. I think the best way to accomplish that would be to reduce the capping rate, or make it so that the maximum roids you can loose is 25% in 24hrs.....thoughts

[jerome]

This is just a bad idea, really. Please don`t mess with the attacking sytem atm, it`s just great tbh, very fluid alongside the stats etc, although late round, it takes a fking miracle to land.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Zahrim

There needs to be a spread in the statistics that allows big planets to attack people, but also allows little planets to recover more quickly when hit by people they cannot defend against.

Anyone can defend against any single attack. Just get a proper alliance, which is a big part of what PA is about. Proper doesn't have to mean top10, it just means more than 20 ingame members. That's 32 alliances to choose from, some of them will accept an application.

Some ideas
1)Increase salvage in some proportion to the value of the attacker to the defender. Eg: If the attacker is twice as big, salvage rate goes up 10%

This is one of the first newbie friendly suggestions in a long, long time I think is good. My problem with salvage is mainly that it works bad the other way: It's harder to kill everyone, therefore it's harder to dethrone anyone higher up. Just go over to PD and read the thread about killing Singu's gal in round 4. Making salvage based on value/score/size differences may do good. There are more consequences that need to be considered, but I'm reservedly supportive of this feature.

2)Target rich environments.... increase dammage done by smaller fleets on larger fleets based on cost. eg: Your corvettes target cruisers, if there is twice the value of enemy cruisers compared to your corvettes, increase the dammage by 5% of the corvettes under the assumption that the corvettes don't have a problem dealing dammage to so many enemy ships. Continue to increase the 5% interval for every 100% mismatch in ship values.

What about sending smallish fleets to attack largish targets. With the current exclusive targeting, it's possible to build a series of fleets (one or more planets) that will take no or few losses, but have detremintal effects on opposing fleets. I don't think this is a good idea at all.

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Maybe we should have an option where we can devide the base fleet into a fleet in hangars and a fleet on patrol. Ships in the hangars don't participate in battles and ships on patrol will try to engage the enemy. That way if you go away for a long night you can put your ships in the hangers and at least have the ships in one piece when you return.

What happens if structure targetting ships destroy the hangers?

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Jester

What happens if structure targetting ships destroy the hangers?

I didn't see this as a construction. Just another option to put fleets in in the Fleets screen. So where you now have Base you would have 2 options: Hangar or Patrol.

[Jester]

I realize that, but obviously the question had to be asked. I mean, usually putting things in hangars makes them more vulnerable, not less.

Incidentally, I don't think it's a terrible idea. There is a problem though: it makes it impossible to kill someone's fleet. While protecting newbies, it also protects top100 planets from fleetcatches, which are one of the best ways to fight opponents with bigger or similar sized fleets*.

* Dunno if this is still as applicable as it was with blanket targeting, I'm afraid. Any BCs want to correct me on this?

[Gerbie]

And hangars can make ships more vulnerable, but nowadays a lot of airplane hangars are in 'bomb'-proof shelters (where they still can be bombed, although that is not easy). Ofc nowadays any ship that's grounded can be hit - if you know where it is. But you never know what tech they might invent by the time they can build spaceships like the ones we use in this game.

A fleetcatch is still just as possible. You cannot put ships into you base fleets while they are out on a mission (that's impossible currently as well).

[Jester]

Oh right, forgot that. If there's a time delay on stuffing them in the hangars and reinitializing them, I guess it's ok.

[Blacknova]

40% I find is pretty ideal as a bash limit, it means that at the absolute worst it needs the target and at least one defender of equivalent score to defend against an attack fleet sent by the larger player, any higher than that would screw the game by making attacks overly risky. There are still games which operate on 20-25% bashlimits which I still find to be pretty ridiculous given the amount of scope for bashing it provides *ahem*pia*ahem*, and even one that still functions without a bashlimit, which is absolutely unfair to smaller players.

25% roidcap is also fine for the same reasons, there is no scaling on the roidcap because of the fact that at 40% the targets still tend to have sufficient fleet to make them at least a challenge.

However there does need to be *some* revision in the stats since there are currently some fleet combos which are borderline indefensible without serious outside help.

Hydra needs init 3, sentinel and vsharrak inits need re-examining, and some modifications need to be made where CR/BS are concerned (the Fireblade is *too* powerful, the Dragon is not powerful enough, Zik and Cath fleets need slight buffing across the board).

Nova

[Gerbie]

There is no need to strengthen Terrans. If the races were more evenly distributed (more cath and zik), then terrans would be the strongest race in the game. An increase in cath and zik strength might make it harder for a terran to roid them, but would increase the number of targets for them as well. And Xandraatii would suffer from them. Zikonians need only a small improvement. Cathaar need a bit of a bigger improvement.

[Blacknova]

Init 3 on Hydra is not so much a strengthening of the Terran fleet as it is a correction which should have been put in, the silly init on the Dragon is also completely unneccessary.

As I explained before, the Hydra right now has zero redeeming features, the gryphon does a better job overall. If the Hydra init was brought down to match that of the bomber, then it would force Terrans to balance fleet composition between base defence (CR anti FR is of little use attacking overall, and adding a tick to attack times is sth most terrans will not willingly do), and having viable attack / ally-def ships.

Look at the Xan fireblade for an example of how this idea pans out in practice

Nova