r66 Changes

[booji]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

If, as you say, there's no correlation, then that conclusion is unwarranted.

My conclusion was very specifically 'deserved' i.e. I think that such activity should be better rewarded than it was and as such had little to do with facts and much to do with opinion. Your post comes close to being a contradiction - you are saying that it would be unjustified for me to think that bows should have done better yet surely such activity would have justified a higher position had it happened. If they had come first or second and the only information available to you on the round were those figures would you have said that the position was undeserved? I would presume not because the activity figures given would have justified that position.

[Clouds]

It's only really a reprensitive from Norse whining about this new feature, who are a renowned offense alliance.

Looking at the stats:

Top Defence Sharing Alliances:
Code:
+------+--------------+-----------------+
| Rank | Name | Fleets Launched |
+------+--------------+-----------------+
| 1 | RainbowS | 1420 |
| 2 | NewDawn | 1296 |
| 3 | Black Flag | 997 |
| 4 | p3nguins | 847 |
| 5 | Faceless | 378 |
| 6 | Howling Rain | 238 |
| 7 | Conspiracy | 146 |
| 8 | Norsemen | 95 |
| 9 | IRONFIST | 10 |
+------+--------------+-----------------+
Top Defence Sharing DCs:
Code:
+------+------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Rank | Nickname | Alliance | Fleets Launched |
+------+------------+--------------+-----------------+
| 1 | Exor | NewDawn | 372 |
| 2 | munkee | p3nguins | 289 |
| 3 | Joseph | RainbowS | 287 |
| 4 | Judge | NewDawn | 245 |
| 5 | Clouds | Black Flag | 231 |
| 6 | Hobster | Black Flag | 223 |
| 7 | ArmAgeddon | Black Flag | 217 |
| 8 | jnz | RainbowS | 183 |
| 9 | Rgat | Howling Rain | 176 |
| 10 | green_cat | RainbowS | 158 |
+------+------------+--------------+-----------------+

You can clearly see that the less formidable alliances are on top using this feature and I still believe that this benefits the less active alliances giving them a fighting chance.

Black Flag for example used the alliance-fleets to an extent, but we mainly had people come on and offer defence rather than using the AF as the main source of defence. You can clearly see that Rainbows and NewDawn benefitted from this feature much more than Black Flag did.

I'm quite sure that if p3n plays properly next round, the AF system will improve their defence and they will be able to compete better than they have in the past. Scrap it and you go back to Ultores dominating where other alliances can only compete at their level by blocking.

Norse has their owns strategy, which is planet ranks by attacking and have minimal defence whereas other alliances like to defend. Just because Norse likes to attack and this AF system makes it harder for them to land doesn't mean the AF system should be scraped. That's quite naive thinking.

Rainbows played a much better round and I noticed a big increase in their defence capabilities.

The PA team needs to take this into consideration that it is helping less active alliances compete better which is what this game needs. Or they can remove it to keep half assed alliances like Norse happy.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by booji

My conclusion was very specifically 'deserved' i.e. I think that such activity should be better rewarded than it was and as such had little to do with facts and much to do with opinion.

I disagree, but this is a reasonable position.

Originally Posted by booji

If they had come first or second and the only information available to you on the round were those figures would you have said that the position was undeserved? I would presume not because the activity figures given would have justified that position.

No, I would not, because winning the game requires more than launching as many fleets as possible. A variety of other factors play a role in determining who does well and who does not, such as fleet efficiency, value preservation, internal coordination, target picking and politics.

[booji]

Originally Posted by booji

If they had come first or second and the only information available to you on the round were those figures would you have said that the position was undeserved? I would presume not because the activity figures given would have justified that position.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

A variety of other factors play a role in determining who does well and who does not, such as fleet efficiency, value preservation, internal coordination, target picking and politics.

I did not deny that other things have a role. I said that taking their activity and excluding other factors they deserved better. I am very much for the position that everyone (at least every alliance - less sure about individual ranks) deserves the position they get when ALL factors are included (unless there is massive cheating). Hence I was admiring a factor in isolation. My initial post did not make this clear, but it also never said anything about other factors either, it was meant as looking at just the one.

[Sandvold]

Originally Posted by Clouds

It's only really a reprensitive from Norse whining about this new feature, who are a renowned offense alliance.

Looking at the stats:

Top Defence Sharing Alliances:
Code:
+------+--------------+-----------------+
| Rank | Name | Fleets Launched |
+------+--------------+-----------------+
| 1 | RainbowS | 1420 |
| 2 | NewDawn | 1296 |
| 3 | Black Flag | 997 |
| 4 | p3nguins | 847 |
| 5 | Faceless | 378 |
| 6 | Howling Rain | 238 |
| 7 | Conspiracy | 146 |
| 8 | Norsemen | 95 |
| 9 | IRONFIST | 10 |
+------+--------------+-----------------+
Top Defence Sharing DCs:
Code:
+------+------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Rank | Nickname | Alliance | Fleets Launched |
+------+------------+--------------+-----------------+
| 1 | Exor | NewDawn | 372 |
| 2 | munkee | p3nguins | 289 |
| 3 | Joseph | RainbowS | 287 |
| 4 | Judge | NewDawn | 245 |
| 5 | Clouds | Black Flag | 231 |
| 6 | Hobster | Black Flag | 223 |
| 7 | ArmAgeddon | Black Flag | 217 |
| 8 | jnz | RainbowS | 183 |
| 9 | Rgat | Howling Rain | 176 |
| 10 | green_cat | RainbowS | 158 |
+------+------------+--------------+-----------------+

You can clearly see that the less formidable alliances are on top using this feature and I still believe that this benefits the less active alliances giving them a fighting chance.

Black Flag for example used the alliance-fleets to an extent, but we mainly had people come on and offer defence rather than using the AF as the main source of defence. You can clearly see that Rainbows and NewDawn benefitted from this feature much more than Black Flag did.

I'm quite sure that if p3n plays properly next round, the AF system will improve their defence and they will be able to compete better than they have in the past. Scrap it and you go back to Ultores dominating where other alliances can only compete at their level by blocking.

Norse has their owns strategy, which is planet ranks by attacking and have minimal defence whereas other alliances like to defend. Just because Norse likes to attack and this AF system makes it harder for them to land doesn't mean the AF system should be scraped. That's quite naive thinking.

Rainbows played a much better round and I noticed a big increase in their defence capabilities.

The PA team needs to take this into consideration that it is helping less active alliances compete better which is what this game needs. Or they can remove it to keep half assed alliances like Norse happy.

Don't think anyone in norse is really against the ally fleet feature. More like we don't see how it's great for the game. Only thing i dislike about it is that i think it will be more ptargeting/gangbanging on alliances since it's harder to land a few single waves when it's easy to launch the ally fleet, but that's no big deal for us.

For norse def wise it's acutally better. Even less use to get up during the night

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by booji

I did not deny that other things have a role. I said that taking their activity and excluding other factors they deserved better. I am very much for the position that everyone (at least every alliance - less sure about individual ranks) deserves the position they get when ALL factors are included (unless there is massive cheating). Hence I was admiring a factor in isolation. My initial post did not make this clear, but it also never said anything about other factors either, it was meant as looking at just the one.

The arguments being made against the "allie fleet" is that activity infact wont be rewarded, and the deciding factor of the game will be politics, wich perhaps is both the most predictable part of the game, and the most random part of the game.

To stop round stagnation, blocking is a vital part of the game, but as we have seen many rounds blocking/gangbanging/politics will often lead to a stagnated univers where there is a food chain wich of the top alliance dont get hit enough to lose roids/ground, a group of smaller alliances that is supporting the top alliance is getting farmed by the rest, while the roids eventualy float up onto the top alliance.

When alliances finds out they cant solo roid any tags anymore, gangbanging will appear just to get a normal(not ult) alliance to go into red.

Now this is just speculation, but if this change will make it harder to break through alliances defence with only one alliance, what has happend to ultores over the past few rounds would be a neccisity for landing tier 2/tier 3 alliances aswell, not to the same extent though.
Say ie CT wanted to attack and land on p3nguins, who earlier would start leaking roids after 40 incomming fleets, now they would have to make sure they get another 20-30 incommings to be sure they would be able to break through their defence.
Lets say that CT/FL/BowS/P3ng would be able to cover all nights/days with 70> incs. That was almost 70% of every night/day of r65

[fortran]

Imo if the defense capability of those other alliances increases, they will be able to be something more than bystanders and roids source, I think this is one major cause of stagnation.

[Mzyxptlk]

I agree. I like the alliance fleet feature in principle, but we should carefully watch how it affects the fundamental balance between attack and defense. I suspect we'll have a clearer picture of that balance at the end of next round

[edit] It appears I misunderstood your post at first reading. We're talking about 2 related but separate things.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by fortran

Imo if the defense capability of those other alliances increases, they will be able to be something more than bystanders and roids source, I think this is one major cause of stagnation.

There can only be one winner, and it has never been 8 alliances challenging for the win. Its against he law of nature.