Why not get rid of value in score at all?

[Robsch]

Admittedly, I said in another thread that xp is crap all the way, but then, it really depends on the concept of PA you have.

If PA is meant to be a build up game, where the sense of the game is, to make players build up their planet, increasing number and diversity of buildings, building up a big fleet, collecting roids and wage wars on each other, than surely xp is a pain in the arse, unnecessary and irritating.

But if PA is meant to be a game all about getting and loosing those roids, to maximize turnover and quick changing centers of power, than xp is just fine to get it there, and the value beeing part of the score is the disturbing thing. And I think, for PA crew this is the way, the game should be.

So if you take that point of view, you really should get rid of the value in score altogether, making value only a help to get xp.

I could think of two possibilities getting in xp than, so players can choose to their preferences how to play the game: xp for attackers and xp for defenders. For the bravery factor I would take the whole value of all attackers compared to the whole value of defenders. The attacker gets xp as its now for the number of roids capt. If there are no roids captured or if the attack was recalled amongst the last 2 ticks before landing, defenders should get xp for the maximum amount of roids that attacker could have capt (lower value of 25% or what he had got from pods).

Now, what do you say bout that?

[gormster]

Most likely outcome is that the number of value players will decrease to comparatively next to nothing,and drastically remove variety of planets in the game. In such a scenario, everyone is driven by two needs, to keep their value down to maximise bravery factor, while having just enough ships to beat targets (or at least get a few roids if they're crashing). A state of dynamic equilibrium would occur, with all of the top players hovering around an average value.
Meanwhile, newer players would make the natural assumption that building a nice big fleet of shippies and lots of mines and security centres and all the rest of those gimmicks were actually a good thing for them to do. But the xpwhores will be so numerous that no one will actually be able to maintain a significant difference in value from the norm- the 2000 or so xpwhores out there will just bring them right back down again.
The game will become purely about finely balancing your own value against the rest of the universe. Which is a bit boring really, isnt it? At least this way there is an "opt-out" for people, like me, who used to like all those shippies and gimmicks

[XelNaga]

PA should be about power, about being the strongest, and thus about value.

Get rid of f*cking XP.

[rop1964]

being the strongest?! then everyone would be zik.. as they can steal ships and roids, true their speed is rather slow but if it s all about power, many player will band together to wipe clean target of both ships and roids.. killing the desire of the so destroyed targets.. like any game, this one need balance!

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

Get rid of f*cking XP.

New players would die like flies and stop playing.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Nadar

New players would die like flies and stop playing.

agreed

[XelNaga]

Yes, and this way is so great, lots of core players stop playing because of XP. And I doubt XP has the oh-so-uber influence on new players to stay. I'm 100% positive that more players leave because of XP than players stay because of XP.

[The_Fish]

I like those 2 extremes.

Happy medium ftw.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

I'm 100% positive that more players leave because of XP than players stay because of XP.

Show me.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

I'm 100% positive that more players leave because of XP than players stay because of XP.

I'll ring the president.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Show me.

I wouldnt bother discussing it with him, hes fairly deluded and thinks theres thousands of players out there whom dont have a RL and can commit 15 hours plus aday on the game including getting up at all hours to send defence (On one post he went as far as saying that the people whom could only commit a fraction of the hardcore players time were a minority thus implying that the majority of internet users can spend a hardcore amount of time playing the game)

[Treveler]

If the PA team insist on having two games in one why not operate with a value based rank and a xp/score based rank. That way the inactives can play amoung themselves and the hardcore players can have their own ranking system.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by wakey

I wouldnt bother discussing it with him, hes fairly deluded and thinks theres thousands of players out there whom dont have a RL and can commit 15 hours plus aday on the game including getting up at all hours to send defence (On one post he went as far as saying that the people whom could only commit a fraction of the hardcore players time were a minority thus implying that the majority of internet users can spend a hardcore amount of time playing the game)

ha aha ha ha... really? He forgot his medicine, yeah?

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Treveler

If the PA team insist on having two games in one why not operate with a value based rank and a xp/score based rank. That way the inactives can play amoung themselves and the hardcore players can have their own ranking system.

I actually agree with this. Have the XP people battle it out to the death and have separate rankings like the Covert Ops people.
Battle Lantern! Battle Lantern!

[Robsch]

Originally Posted by Treveler

If the PA team insist on having two games in one why not operate with a value based rank and a xp/score based rank. That way the inactives can play amoung themselves and the hardcore players can have their own ranking system.

I guess there should be only one ranking as if there are more, people will get confused, what to go after. But that gave me an idea: make a ranking on value and one on xp as you said, and then simple add up the rank numbers, whats supposed to be the score than (meaning of course lower "score" beeing better). So than neither the xp "suicide-bombers" nor the value players that show no "bravery" at all will do it but someone who builds up and still takes some risks will do fine...

hmmm... what strange ideas you get sometimes

btw. you could introduce rankings along other activities you think the game should be about as well and add it to the score ..

[JonnyBGood]

Please god whatever happens just keep it as one ranking

[Kjeldoran]

I think the game should be value based, but with an XP part as extra bonus.
I think players that are active, dedicated and spend a whole round taking care of their fleet, making it well balanced for both attacking as defending should be rewarded in the end with a nice rank. But XP should also have an influence, just not the "main" part of score as it is right now.

Imo, losing roids should be more then "ahh well, I'll get them back tomorrow. Don't bother sending defence" ...

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by wakey

I wouldnt bother discussing it with him, hes fairly deluded and thinks theres thousands of players out there whom dont have a RL and can commit 15 hours plus aday on the game including getting up at all hours to send defence (On one post he went as far as saying that the people whom could only commit a fraction of the hardcore players time were a minority thus implying that the majority of internet users can spend a hardcore amount of time playing the game)

Maybe you should get your facts straight. I said the target audience of this game SHOULD BE those that pass lots of time in front of their PC anyways, since they a) certainly have enough spare time to check during the ticks and b) will find easier into the game.

And I never said there are more hardcore players leaving than new players coming BUT the new players certainly DON'T stay only because of XP. I'd even go as far as saying that just a very very small amount, those that get a nice rank by pure luck or whatever once, and lose it when bashed, would maybe stay because of XP.

And certainly NEW players don't profit AT ALL of XP, since they don't have the experience to XP whore properly. This whole argument of "new players, bigger player base, blabla" is just pure non-sense made up by the group of people that want XP to stay for THEIR benefit, because they don't have the possibility or don't want to put the time and effort into the game that was required in the glorious PA days to be at the top.

But that group of people simple ignores the fact that XP, on the long run, will ruin all what PA was about, and why it was fun to be played. If I just want to click around, I don't need a god damn game. But there is nothing else an XP whore needs to do to stay on top. No communication, no alliance, no alliance wars, no nothing except for clicking required. That's not the PA I loved to play.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Imo, losing roids should be more then "ahh well, I'll get them back tomorrow. Don't bother sending defence" ...

Like "noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" *jumps out of windows*? :xmasgrin:

[wakey]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

And I never said there are more hardcore players leaving than new players coming BUT the new players certainly DON'T stay only because of XP. I'd even go as far as saying that just a very very small amount, those that get a nice rank by pure luck or whatever once, and lose it when bashed, would maybe stay because of XP.

And certainly NEW players don't profit AT ALL of XP, since they don't have the experience to XP whore properly. This whole argument of "new players, bigger player base, blabla" is just pure non-sense made up by the group of people that want XP to stay for THEIR benefit, because they don't have the possibility or don't want to put the time and effort into the game that was required in the glorious PA days to be at the top.

But that group of people simple ignores the fact that XP, on the long run, will ruin all what PA was about, and why it was fun to be played. If I just want to click around, I don't need a god damn game. But there is nothing else an XP whore needs to do to stay on top. No communication, no alliance, no alliance wars, no nothing except for clicking required. That's not the PA I loved to play.

If your going to argue that XP has no effect on keeping casual players in the game then your argueing with the wrong person. Theres probally very few people in this game with the knowledge of the lower end of the game than me and I have seen firsthand the effect of XP on keeping new players playing over the last 6 rounds. The help its given is immesurable, it gives people a reason to continue playing after being attacked, it allows continued growth thus a sense of acheivment, it keeps activity in alliances outside the blocks up and such like.

And considering im one of the ones whom brings up the "it helps new players" argument, I find it highly insulting that your stating that those whom say this are just looking after their own benift. Somehow I think I have more than proven that when it comes to PA my own benifit doesnt come into it, otherwise I wouldnt have spent 16 rounds running an alliance that puts helping new and inexperianced players first, which requires ridicuous amounts of time and which hinders my own progress. If you want to start pointing the finger at people being selfish and after just helping themselves perhaps you should look at people like yourselves whom are adament that XP should be totally removed thus allowing only the tinyiest amount of players whom manage to land themselves in a hardcore alliance and a hardcore galaxy and can put in hardcore hours to get any enjoyment out of the game.

While you wont even reconise the flaws of Value those supporting XP know theres problems with the current formula as it encourages suiciding of fleets and totally ignoring your value and we want a game where XP and Value players can play side by side with the winners being those that show the most skill ( With skill clearly being those whom do well at gaining XP while having high values and keeping your roids)

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by wakey

If your going to argue that XP has no effect on keeping casual players in the game then your argueing with the wrong person. Theres probally very few people in this game with the knowledge of the lower end of the game than me and I have seen firsthand the effect of XP on keeping new players playing over the last 6 rounds. The help its given is immesurable, it gives people a reason to continue playing after being attacked, it allows continued growth thus a sense of acheivment, it keeps activity in alliances outside the blocks up and such like.

And considering im one of the ones whom brings up the "it helps new players" argument, I find it highly insulting that your stating that those whom say this are just looking after their own benift. Somehow I think I have more than proven that when it comes to PA my own benifit doesnt come into it, otherwise I wouldnt have spent 16 rounds running an alliance that puts helping new and inexperianced players first, which requires ridicuous amounts of time and which hinders my own progress. If you want to start pointing the finger at people being selfish and after just helping themselves perhaps you should look at people like yourselves whom are adament that XP should be totally removed thus allowing only the tinyiest amount of players whom manage to land themselves in a hardcore alliance and a hardcore galaxy and can put in hardcore hours to get any enjoyment out of the game.

While you wont even reconise the flaws of Value those supporting XP know theres problems with the current formula as it encourages suiciding of fleets and totally ignoring your value and we want a game where XP and Value players can play side by side with the winners being those that show the most skill ( With skill clearly being those whom do well at gaining XP while having high values and keeping your roids)

First, you say it keeps casual players like you in the game. Then you state you don't want to keep XP for your own benefit. Self-owned on that point.

But to dig into that further: we keep casual players, like you call them, and lose hardcore players. Hardly a good exchange.

It removes the sense for achievement, to be honnest, since you don't really achieve anything. You don't grow, you just gather XP.

And rather have hardcore players, hardcore galaxies and hardcore alliances, who put in so much more effort and time, at the top, than have "casual players" at the top.

And I never said the idea of XP wasn't a good one, but the current setup, the whole WAY XP is handled, is just flawed.

As you certainly remember I suggested a (in my eyes still the best) solution here. It fills all reasons why XP was introduced, and it doesn't create any negative aspects.

The thing with you is, whenever you couldn't bring through an argument, you're pulling the next one out of your pocket. Simply because YOU WANT XP to be good, because it is good for you. That's just the way most humans function, and that's why you keep finding reasons. You might counter that it's the same with me, well, maybe, at least I manage to recognize the effort, the risk and the achievement of value players compared to xp whores, and think they deserve more than xp whores.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

First, you say it keeps casual players like you in the game. Then you state you don't want to keep XP for your own benefit. Self-owned on that point.

The only problem with that argument is that even with a reduced activity this round (due to RL and an agreement with Cm that id take the round 'off' to recharge after pretty much playing 15 rounds at hardcore levels) my average activity per day is at a level you could only dream of. As such if I really was bothered about MY OWN PROGRESS a value game would suit me because i doubt id have much trouble finding membership in a hardcore alliance and a hardcore buddy pack to ensure a resonable galaxy and with that i could have alot easier life as I wouldnt need half the hours to do well as I need to do now and not do that well.

But to dig into that further: we keep casual players, like you call them, and lose hardcore players. Hardly a good exchange.

As opposed to the old situation of "Lose teh Casuals, stagnate the game with lack of active players, have the hardcores complain and quit" its a slight improvement as atleast its only 1 group quitting. And anyway its one round where theres been a problem with xp arising like this, yes some may quit but they may have quit anyway and for the rest of them you have anither round to balance the two play styles off better as these hardcore players are generally not so quick to jump ship at the first sign of a problem

It removes the sense for achievement, to be honnest, since you don't really achieve anything. You don't grow, you just gather XP.

How can being REWARDED for your acheivments remove a sense of acheivment. And how does having a game that allows some idiot to twice your size to bash you and remove all your achievments for the whole round give you that sense of acheivment. Completing a round with a score that shows you have done resonable well is alot more rewarding than ending the round before the half way point with a score that doesnt disquinsish you from some new player whos just come out of protection

And rather have hardcore players, hardcore galaxies and hardcore alliances, who put in so much more effort and time, at the top, than have "casual players" at the top.

Putting in more hours != More deserving of the top spot.

While Hardcore players have more time it doesnt mean they have more skill and the game shouldnt be a simple case of the person whom put the most time in winning. The game should be diverse enough so that if you have to put 15 hours a day in then thats fine but if you can acheive that rank with 5 hours then that should be fine also

The thing with you is, whenever you couldn't bring through an argument, you're pulling the next one out of your pocket. Simply because YOU WANT XP to be good, because it is good for you. That's just the way most humans function, and that's why you keep finding reasons. You might counter that it's the same with me, well, maybe, at least I manage to recognize the effort, the risk and the achievement of value players compared to xp whores, and think they deserve more than xp whores.

To borrow a saying from the TV show Veronica Mars "Go see the wizard and ask him for a clue"

Your one of the most ignorant and clueless people ive ever had the misfortune of trying to discuss something with. You go around around disrespecting XP players just because you think being able to spend all day on a PC is skillful and the have the cheek to imply your somehow better than me because "You reconise the effort" value players put in. The strage thing is at no point have I said Value players dont put effort in or that I want the effort punished, you are infact the one whos failing to reconise both styles of play require skill with your view that XP players are shit players and value players deserve it more as you seem to think thats more skillful just because a few XP players are foing well on a really small level of activty because they are abusing the system. But as ive pointed out which you ignore Value players have and can abuse the system and put in as little effort but that doesnt mean they are all skilless buffons.

And once again if your going to accuse someone of being selfish perhaps you should make sure that its not someone who

- has spent every round helping new and inexperianced players by running a training alliance even though it hnders their progress
- Turned down offers to join most of the big alliances at some point in the game even though it hinders their progress
- Spent alot of their time over the round helping other alliances get setup or through problems
- Spent alot of their own time doing stuff to help the community
ect ect

[XelNaga]

Originally Posted by wakey

To borrow a saying from the TV show Veronica Mars "Go see the wizard and ask him for a clue"

Your one of the most ignorant and clueless people ive ever had the misfortune of trying to discuss something with. You go around around disrespecting XP players just because you think being able to spend all day on a PC is skillful and the have the cheek to imply your somehow better than me because "You reconise the effort" value players put in. The strage thing is at no point have I said Value players dont put effort in or that I want the effort punished, you are infact the one whos failing to reconise both styles of play require skill with your view that XP players are shit players and value players deserve it more as you seem to think thats more skillful just because a few XP players are foing well on a really small level of activty because they are abusing the system. But as ive pointed out which you ignore Value players have and can abuse the system and put in as little effort but that doesnt mean they are all skilless buffons.

And once again if your going to accuse someone of being selfish perhaps you should make sure that its not someone who

- has spent every round helping new and inexperianced players by running a training alliance even though it hnders their progress
- Turned down offers to join most of the big alliances at some point in the game even though it hinders their progress
- Spent alot of their time over the round helping other alliances get setup or through problems
- Spent alot of their own time doing stuff to help the community
ect ect

With this whole paragraph, you just show how useless it is to discuss with you. I'm not going into anything of what you have said, and of course you will interpretate that as "victory", since you are intellectually so "superior" to me. It would be a waste of time, since I already got into those points before, and you don't get or don't want to get my points.

Let me just say some things: you are bringing this down to a personnal level (me vs you, me vs xp whores), I never did. You are putting words in my mouth I never said. And you're contradicting yourself in your own text again, but you certainly won't even realize or admit that.

This is the last reply EVER I give you, since you're, put in a nutshell, not worth the effort. There is no use for me trying to explain logics to you that lie beyond your capacity of comprehension.

Let me finish with a quote, since you seem to like them.

"Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

P.S. Sorry for being offensive, but simply, I don't like being insulted by someone who thinks he is superior to me, while I'm sure I could proove the contrary. You can now either flame against me again, and have the last word, if that makes you happy. Or you can just leave it as is. Or you can flame me in PM. Your choice, honnestly, but I won't answer anything from you anymore. And I couldn't care less about what you or anyone else here thinks, it's clear to me that most will think I'm an arrogant asshole after this post anyways.

[Shyne]

The new XP formula already deals with these problems - it provides a balance between XP and value.

The low end players barely reaching 20k xp keep relatively closer to top players than they would have done in the current, and past rounds.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Shyne

The new XP formula already deals with these problems - it provides a balance between XP and value.

The low end players barely reaching 20k xp keep relatively closer to top players than they would have done in the current, and past rounds.

You keep saying that but actually it doesnt seem to do that.Go and run the new XP formula across the current round and while it reduces the lead of those suiciding fleets it is far from reaching a balance point.

It is a step in the right direction but I firmly believe it needs tweaked to make it less advantagous at the higher echalons of the rankings to keep your value artifically low, even if that means making it even easier to get XP at the lower ends of the game (infact xp gains easier lower down is actually a good thing thats in the games favour)