Bash Protection and Clusters

[Marka]

Quick check with Sandmans tells me that currently some Top10 value planets are able to attack all Top450 planets.
Combined with low cluster ETA this leads to a lot of "farming". Even if that ain't exactly the definition as it isn't friendly - but being under attack by planets 3-4 times your value every day without chance of alliance support is about the same.
So if cluster eta is about to stay the same as it is there needs to be some other ways to protect small planets from bashing.
Some options would be:

1. Value-Bash Limit (40%) only
Some might cry that this supports XP whoring - but really it is the duty of stats to prevent that. The current Score limit hugely supports Value whoring through farming smaller planets/gals - expecially in clusters - much worse than XP whores. Retals are allowed.

2. Cluster Bash Limit
Can be implement either in galaxies (you are not allowed to attack galaxies in your cluster that are 3 or more cluster-ranks behind you) or planets (you are not allowed to attack planets less than 60% of your value) - exception for retals. The ranking based scheme might be problematic if there is a war in a cluster with several closely ranked galaxies - but through the scoring systems galaxies are much more close in score to each other than they used to be - so a score/value based limit would be tough.

3. General Galaxy or Alliance bashlimit
Pretty self-explanatory. You may not attack galaxies/alliances that are x% scmaller than/x ranks behind you - exception for retals. This pretty much would cause a majorly change in gameplay. Theoretically it would cause top galaxies and top alliances to engage at each other more than they currently do because they would be pretty much restricted to that. Eventually it could lead to smaller alliances that could keep 1 or 2 top planets if they player is really good cause he wouldn't get bashed continuously due to worse alliance support. Risks are that really small alliances/battlegroups could play pretty much without opposition - maybe it could be average-based...
This option would require most thinking/balancing.

4. Easier options for relocation
If you are a semi-active gal and your cluster decides to farm you there is nothing you can do about it. Galaxy Disbanding is only an option to the most inactive (which never could make the vote). Self-Exile is pure gamble where prices are skyrocketing very high. All in all there is too much luck involved in the decision how u gonna finish your round.
We need some more "controlled fate". This could include.
- Galaxy Disbanding for all galaxies - if the gal realizes that they don't work together well - get farmed etc. just give them the option to end it with a majority vote
- Galaxy Relocation - exile out of your cluster - fairly stuffed gal fund + majority vote needed
- Self-Exile Blacklist - before you waste your money you can select 10 gals you don't wanna end in
- Self-Exile Supreme - for some extra money you can pick one of 3 random gals PA provides you

Gotta be careful about the self-exiles as this could be abused pretty easy if it is too cheap/easy - but I really think some more options for the galaxy are needed.

Anyway - can't think of more now. Right now PA is very unfriendly to new/small players in terms of protecting them. There are no game masters and alliances/galaxies are usually protecting the planets that do the bashing - thus there has to be some hard-coded protection that works.

[The Real Arfy]

I stopped after reading the first few sentences. You know why top 10 in value can hit the top 450 scorers? Because they mostly crash their ships for XP.

The bash limit is fine.

[Wandows]

That is not really the point he is trying to make. What he is saying makes sense to some extent. Due to XP, scores are quite close and thus top value players are able to hit quite alot of planets without problems. Now in itself this is perfectly fine ofcourse as that is how it should be, as was discussed before when value planets couldn't do anything against XP players to get their roids back.

The problem comes when you combine clusters with this play, if you as mediocre (value) player have the bad luck of ending in a reasonably inactive gal/cluster with one or two dominant value gals incluster, there is basicly nothing you can do against those value planets picking up easy roids from your planet. Your alliance can't do alot against it (due to the limited time to arrange defence) and if your gal isn't that active, you are basicly dead in the water constantly being hit by the same 'huge' planets when you reach a reasonable amount of roids. It is rather depressing to be constantly hit without being able to do anything about it and doesn't really help ppl to stay and play this game.

[rop1964]

i agree with wandows completely (is this a 1st?? lol)

pa biggest problem is the ability of big value planet to hit pretty much anybody (in cluster or not) without having those small guys being able to get reasonable def, or hope to survive each hit tick after tick.

i know, cause i was there in the previous rounds.

something must be done to help the small guys.

[Marka]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

I stopped after reading the first few sentences. You know why top 10 in value can hit the top 450 scorers? Because they mostly crash their ships for XP.

The bash limit is fine.

Maybe you should read.
I never suggested to not be able to attack low value - high xp planets - just restricting it to retals.

Yet this xp whoring argument really gets old - noone ever gives a good argument except the "omg xp-whore are teh suxor coz they have no skill blabla".
It's a perfectly legit strategy - there is xp in this game - if you find ways to get lots of it by examining the stats and therefore manage to gain a decent rank - fine. There only been 1 round b4 this one where xp could get you to the top. This current round they just repeated the very same stat-mistake. If value players have oh so much more skill than xp players they should have built a fleet that doesn't invite crashers - by examining the stats :P
Some Top10 value players have less than 10k xp - the only way you can have that low xp but that many roids and value is farming or noob bashing - period.

Besides, you really think that everyone in Top450 except Top50 value players is willingly crashing for roids?

So no the bash limit isn't fine - atm it's just a farming invitation.

[ComradeRob]

I think the fundamental problem here is that people have some kind of expectation that they should be able to attack aggressively (capping lots of roids) and keep those roids. You can't do it, it's impossible, unless you are one of a very small number of people who have worked very hard to build an alliance capable of defending those roids.

XP makes holding roids much less important than it otherwise would be. I can count the number of defence fleets I've received this round on the fingers of one hand and I'm fairly comfortably inside the top 100 (having lost some 2800 roids along the way). That said, I've found the round to be quite boring, but I haven't found any problems with 'bashing'. The biggest problem with getting defence is still the fact that you have to do it at 3am; anything else is irrelevant.

I'm not opposed to making it easier for people to organise defence (perhaps alliance defence ETA needs to be -2?), but I am opposed to the idea of putting more limits on who can attack who.

P.S. Can we please stop using hyperbole like 'noob bashing' and 'farming' when what we really mean is 'attacking someone smaller'? Using emotive terms makes your argument look weak.

[Marka]

If I would be talking about attacking smaller planets I wouldn't refer to those terms. But if you don't like them I will start using fluffling for the remainder of this thread.

Inofficial definition of fluffling for this thread:
Attacking players that are much smaller than you and have no chance of gaining enough help to defend themselves.

Most online games have some sort of fluffling protection. Imagine how popular WoW would be if every new player on a server would get killed within 5 minutes by a Lvl30 dude that grabs your equipment and gold because he can, doesn't have to face a penalty and has an easy gain.

Of course there needs to be a possibility to attack someone smaller than yourself. But does it really need to be half the playing universe? If you want to attack someone 100 ranks behind you - fine. Fluffling someone 300 ranks behind is a different thing.

I understand that there needs to be an option to retaliate planets that attack you even if they are much smaller. But the implementation of this option is more than questionable. To go back to WoW - as soon as a lvl 20 player is stupid enough to attack a lvl60 - he gets killed. But the lvl60 shouldn't be allowed to fluffle all lvl20 ppl in return.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marka

Some Top10 value players have less than 10k xp - the only way you can have that low xp but that many roids and value is farming or noob bashing - period.

This is appalling untrue. When you're at the top of the value and the score ranks you're not going to get that much xp regardless of who you hit. Especially when you stay there and especially late round. The idea that it can only be farming, I imagine the MH watch the top planets rather closely for that, or noob bashing, er I think the noobs might be out of bash for them now is so inane I despair for the sake of anyone who has to read it.

[ComradeRob]

There's a perfectly good reason why the term 'farming' shouldn't be used: it has an established meaning, referring to 'consensual' attacks. Using the term for non-consensual attacks is confusing. 'Noob bashing' depends on your definition of a 'noob'. I think 'planet with less value' is a poor definition of 'noob'.

Attacking players that are much smaller than you and have no chance of gaining enough help to defend themselves.

But most attacks are like that! There's scarcely a point in attacking people who can easily defend themselves. By the same token, should we prevent people from using DE against planets which have no anti-DE? After all, they're going to find it difficult to defend themselves, aren't they?

It's really quite simple: the crucial variable here is value/score ratio. A person with a low value but a high score is obviously someone who caps a lot of roids. That person can have no expectation of being able to keep those roids. It's simply not possible. Since they're not going to keep their roids anyway, there's no harm in allowing more people to attack them. It seems silly to cry over the fate of people who got where they are by ruthlessly attacking others with, quite probably, an attack-oriented fleet. I'm one of those people and I would have no problem in being attacked by anyone in the universe.

If a person has a low score relative to their value, they will gain protection from the value bash limit. If you want to avoid being attacked, it's not all that hard; build lots of refineries and have a reasonably strong defensive fleet. Go Zik or Xan, as they have very high damage potential and are more difficult to calc attacks against.

You seem to be saying that players should be able to have it both ways: be able to attack frequently, whilst always being capable of defending themselves against attack, and this just isn't possible.

Your analogy with WoW seems superficially correct, but it falls apart upon closer inspection. I admit that I don't play WoW, but I've played other RPGs and, normally, it is the case that a higher-level player will always beat a lower-level player. In PA, that is not necessarily the case. Having a higher rank, or higher value, does not necessarily determine who would win in a battle between two different fleets, or what the likelihood of defence is. An attacker will choose targets which are vulnerable to his particular fleet and which offer a particular reward for attacking them, whether roids gained or XP gained. Larger targets offer both more roids and more XP. As a result, an attack on a larger planet might require heavy defence to deter the attacker from landing - if I'm going to gain 100k score in XP, I don't care about losing 50k value in ships. But if I'm attacking downwards, gaining only 10k score in XP, that 50k value loss would be enough to stop me. It's already a lot easier for small planets to make attacks expensive; if they're unable to get any defence (or simply don't care) then it doesn't matter who attacks them.

Edit: re-reading my post, it seems a bit negative. I'm not disagreeing with the notion that there's a lot wrong with the game and that it needs fixing, or that the game needs to offer a lot more to players who aren't 'elite'. I simply disagree completely with the idea that hard limits on player actions are the solution.

[Marka]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is appalling untrue. When you're at the top of the value and the score ranks you're not going to get that much xp regardless of who you hit. Especially when you stay there and especially late round. The idea that it can only be farming, I imagine the MH watch the top planets rather closely for that, or noob bashing, er I think the noobs might be out of bash for them now is so inane I despair for the sake of anyone who has to read it.

The whole point of this thread is that they AIN'T outta bash yet and won't be anytime soon.
Let's take 11:7:1 - Sandmans says 2700ish roids gained - let's reduce that to 2500 gained through roiding. Current XP around 8500 - with other xp sources maybe 7000 gained through roiding.
This means he gained an average of 2.8 xp per roid - which leads us to an average bravery factor of 0.28.
So on average he attacked planets 64% his value & score - on every attack whole round.
That doesn't imply that this planet is relying to the mentioned tactics - but the numbers do make me suspicious.

Originally Posted by ComradeBob

But most attacks are like that! There's scarcely a point in attacking people who can easily defend themselves. By the same token, should we prevent people from using DE against planets which have no anti-DE? After all, they're going to find it difficult to defend themselves, aren't they?

You are comparing sheep and dog here. Again I am NOT NOT NOT against being able to attack smaller planets, planets with a bad fleet combo or planets that are attacking you.
Why are top 20 planets able to attack all the way down to Top450?
Shouldn't top planets fight each other?
Why does the current system favor extreme attacks (small crashing on big and big attacking small) instead of fights between equal planets?

My intension with the suggestions isn't to prevent small value high xp planets from getting roided - they will lose them anyway.
All I want to say is that not the biggest planets should do this easy roiding but the medium sized ones, and then let the big raid the medium. Where's the problem if a top10 planet "only" can attack top150/200 planets and planets which are attacking him?

[jerome]

to be honest it isn't the top 10 planets you should be worried about for newbie bashing or most of the top 50 i'd figure, it's the medium #200-#500 planets who are likeliest to newbie bash because if they knew any better, they'd likely be top 100 as well. it simply isn't profitable for a top 10 planet to hit a top 450 one, though this round is an anomaly since all the top alliances are pussies or at least believe their best chance in winning is just outroid each other

[rop1964]

of course top 10-100 planet wont and cant hit a planet ranked 500 or less.. but they can easily hit a planet 200-400 rank. and the fact that ppls says it s ok for a planet with x2 or more the value of their target to attack and land on them is ridiculous and self destructing.

i agree that planetarion is a war game, but even in war there s rules.
anybody know a country that continue fighting after losing 4-5 major losses.
when their army is 100 militia? short of guerilla tactics (covert ops), a planet with no roids and no fleet to build upon wont stay in this game, and will probably quit rapidly.

yes the top 100 planet have to have target to attack, that s all right.. even medium and small planet need target to attack.. that not what i m against..
i m against the overpowering of a planet by mean of value!

a guy that badly plan his defense deserve to be roided. the same for those who suicide their fleets..
but someone who tries to build a good planet should not be torn to pieces by someone 2x his value .. everyone knows here the a terran with 1 million in value can crush a terran with 4-500k in value
is that what we want to promote? the war side and overkilling of the smaller planets? i thought we wanted to attract players by showing what s the game has to offer as fun, strategy, communication, interaction, and most of all , enjoyability.
there s nothing enjoyable when you see 3 fleet of the top 100 coming to land on you when you re ranked 250-300..
that s simply overkill..

finding a weakness in a player and using it is great.. fleetcatching for zik is fun, outfighting an attack is amusing, especially if the attacker dont pull and crash. but overkilling /overroiding a target is bad.

and those in the rank 400 or less can use every bit of help they can get..
i m sure planet #1 can easily find a target within the top 100, he dont need to hit a planet 150-2590 rank below him, same with others...

[Osidiradadumpf]

Originally Posted by rop1964

i agree with wandows completely (is this a 1st?? lol)

pa biggest problem is the ability of big value planet to hit pretty much anybody (in cluster or not) without having those small guys being able to get reasonable def, or hope to survive each hit tick after tick.

i know, cause i was there in the previous rounds.

something must be done to help the small guys.

Even a fairly big planet (value top100) can get attacked by an small planet, if the small planet concentrade his attacking fleet. In this round we had the perfect example. ETD_BS... If those people are happy to crash 60% of their fleet to gain those roids (which because of the high value of the attacked also generates LOADS of XP) then I think the value player should be able to do the same and ALSO generate loads of XP.
.
This round REALLY sucked because of this. As an XAN you are almost defenseless against ETD-BS (or actually any BS). An 400k value ETD can take on a 1500k value XAN and still get the roids. But if the 1500k XAN tries to steal his roids back, then you consider this bashing..

[Marka]

Originally Posted by Osidiradadumpf

Even a fairly big planet (value top100) can get attacked by an small planet, if the small planet concentrade his attacking fleet. In this round we had the perfect example. ETD_BS... If those people are happy to crash 60% of their fleet to gain those roids (which because of the high value of the attacked also generates LOADS of XP) then I think the value player should be able to do the same and ALSO generate loads of XP.
.
This round REALLY sucked because of this. As an XAN you are almost defenseless against ETD-BS (or actually any BS). An 400k value ETD can take on a 1500k value XAN and still get the roids. But if the 1500k XAN tries to steal his roids back, then you consider this bashing..

This round really gave Xan players first line insight on how it is if you would play Cath regularly
It's part of the game that races have certain vulnerabilities and that you need other sources to cover you versus certain incomings.
The only real reason that Etd mainly attacked Xan instead of Cat, Etd who are even weaker versus Etd BS, is that due to the lack of other weaknesses they had least other incs and therefor usually more value and roids (gee that was a long sentence).

The fact that you can win a round by crashing regularly (Kudos to Ascendancy for excellent usage of stats) is a different issue and should be discussed in any of the Score/Stats/XP threads.

[rop1964]

i did mention in some other posting a simple solution to "suicide attacks", just penalise the attacker in the same way he s losing value.

if landing an attack with 90%+ loss is tolerate, it wont be a war game.. it will be mathematic..

so i say if an attack lose more than 60%, but steal roids, the score gain should be limited by the value loss that happened.

[The Real Arfy]

By the way I don't think Ascendancy (or anyone really) ever crashed for XP. It was really just a fault of the stats, the fact that there was only one ship that could cover vs. BS (clipper) and that everybody was drawn to play etd (?) because it was new.