[Discuss] Structure Killers

[Troll]

I know PA Team nerf the Structure killers for this round, but even so with this round being so attack orientated it basically has had no effect on the demoralization of logging in to another 10 or 20 structures blown to pieces in a 5 wave assault.

So I did some quick thinking on a way to improve the current situation as I do personally enjoy the offence based round rather than a defense one. The obvious answer is that no SK should fit naturally into the same class as any races standard pod fleet. Here are some examples of how I would of done it this round if I had a magic wand.

Xan CO SK
Terran CR SK
Cath BS SK
Zik DE SK

U see now the SK’s are the same eta as the main roid fleet for each race however they are a separate class. This would mean the defense could be arranged to STOP the SK but not the pods. I just think this would bring a new texture to the game with gritty new thinking and strategy both on the offence and the defense.

Anyways it’s late and another 20 building are going to poof on me stupid people make SK just because they can fit it in with out having to plan out anything, DUMB grrrr

[Kal]

this is an interesting idea

[ChubbyChecker]

Yeah, looks good. Anything that makes Structure Killers more crappy than they already are is good in my book.

I also think that the maximum number of Structures than can be killed in 1 tick should be reduced to 10%. 20% is just excessive in my opinion.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Also, SK's cannot be launched on players who are not in an alliance.

This will reduce the amount of n00b bashing that goes on - or rather, make the damage less excessive.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Also, SK's cannot be launched on players who are not in an alliance.

This will reduce the amount of n00b bashing that goes on - or rather, make the damage less excessive.

This is stupid.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Troll

I know PA Team nerf the Structure killers for this round, but even so with this round being so attack orientated it basically has had no effect on the demoralization of logging in to another 10 or 20 structures blown to pieces in a 5 wave assault.

I'm not PAteam.

Xan CO SK
Terran CR SK
Cath BS SK
Zik DE SK

As Kal said, interesting. The problem is that it's much more viable for Cath to add BS than for, say, Xan to add CO to their fleet. Interesting though.

[Proxi]

I thought xan had an fi/co roiding fleet for terrans this round

[Banned]

Originally Posted by veX

I thought xan had an fi/co roiding fleet for terrans this round

Yeah, I was generalizing without actually thinking.

Cath would get pretty nicely screwed this round, as Chimera, BW, XPK and Pirates would be left untouched by their CR.

Generally, the problem this round is that kill fleets with no good 0-loss defense have SKs. The two primary examples are Voracs and (to an extent) Galleons. Actually, Behemoths are probably worse than Galleons. Only Zik (inbalance ahoy) can field 0-loss def vs Terran.

[Appocomaster]

I preferred the idea of structure killers dying when they've been used to kill structures, tbh.

[barney]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I preferred the idea of structure killers dying when they've been used to kill structures, tbh.

maybe both could be incorporated to make ppl think twice about who they send struc killaz to, make them useful for special occasions only

[Remy]

What about stealing structures ^^

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Remy

What about stealing structures ^^

hehehehehe. No. One thing stealing a rock or ship in space, another getting some HUGE thing to land, hook up to a structure and run off with it

[ComradeRob]

I dunno, an ETA 20 ship that cost 500k of each resource but could steal one structure would be

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

hehehehehe. No. One thing stealing a rock or ship in space, another getting some HUGE thing to land, hook up to a structure and run off with it

I think it'd be powered by teleportation (privs, galleons, ect.), rather than the outdated tractor beam technology (pirates, ect.). (Yes, I do read the ship descriptions). I do think this idea is a bit ridiclious though...

-NitinA

[Remy]

Of course it is ridiculous.

Cath this round is ridiculous too, so why not :-)

[Rocko]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

hehehehehe. No. One thing stealing a rock or ship in space, another getting some HUGE thing to land, hook up to a structure and run off with it

(this had me in stiches!!!)

Strucutre killers bad,.. anyhting to make them less used except when it's personal or political = good

[Forest]

Good idea.

I also like having a hard-code for alliance wars, and structure killers can only be used if attacking an alliance you are at war with.
Make a limit of only 2 alliances u cand eclare war on, so for instance, 1up could dcelare war on exil/lch, and only structure killers could be used on those two alliances.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Forest

I also like having a hard-code for alliance wars, and structure killers can only be used if attacking an alliance you are at war with.
Make a limit of only 2 alliances u cand eclare war on, so for instance, 1up could dcelare war on exil/lch, and only structure killers could be used on those two alliances.

was thinking this, but got beaten to it
I think with blocks becoming more and more part of the game, it should be possible to hardcode 2/3 alliance blocks, with some benefits such as structure killers being allowed.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

was thinking this, but got beaten to it
I think with blocks becoming more and more part of the game, it should be possible to hardcode 2/3 alliance blocks, with some benefits such as structure killers being allowed.

I despair, I truly despair.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

was thinking this, but got beaten to it
I think with blocks becoming more and more part of the game, it should be possible to hardcode 2/3 alliance blocks, with some benefits such as structure killers being allowed.

It's good to see that PAteam, as always, are in excellent touch with the game.

[Appocomaster]

not saying it's going to happen. It was just an idea
If blocks are hardcoded with benefits for hitting other blocks and penalisations for not, then alliance wars will benefit smaller players.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

not saying it's going to happen. It was just an idea
If blocks are hardcoded with benefits for hitting other blocks and penalisations for not, then alliance wars will benefit smaller players.

Yes, but...

[ComradeRob]

I'm starting from the assumption (which I thought was largely shared by most people) that Blocks Are Bad. Ergo, in-game features which encourage/reward blocking are also Bad. Ergo, anyone proposing such ideas is an idiot.

A few reasons why the suggestion is a bad idea:

* The added threat of SKs might discourage alliances from entering into such wars, in favour of hitting easier targets who cannot hit back with SKs.

* SKs tend to favour the winning side in any war, since they land their attacks more often. This encourages one-sided block wars.

* The SK limitation might even cause one-sided wars to be prolonged so that alliance members can "get their money's worth" from the SKs they've built. This is commonly known as "bashing".

* Scanners will be excluded from in-game alliances, making them invulnerable to SKs, removing the tactic of destroying enemy scanners' amps.


However, my real objection to the idea isn't the idea itself but the underlying assumption - namely that blocks are assumed to be a permanent feature of the game, despite the majority of the recent rounds having no blocks (at least no blocks that compare to the blocks of r4-r10).

I personally believe that the game should not try to interfere with alliance politics. The current system gives the players the freedom to play the game the way they choose and any further restrictions, particularly crude attempts at political manipulation, are not likely to be either popular or productive. At best, alliances will simply ignore the restrictions and not build SKs - what point is there in building ships that can only be used against a tiny subset of the universe? - and at worst the law of unintended consequences will cause the idea to backfire somehow.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

not saying it's going to happen. It was just an idea
If blocks are hardcoded with benefits for hitting other blocks and penalisations for not, then alliance wars will benefit smaller players.

This is not a good direction for Planetarion, because while yes alliances are a big part of the game it will not lead to growth. In fact, hardcoding alliances in the game should be undone.

New players, who have landed here from browsing, searching, advertisement, or weblink, or maybe have heard of it etc, will play the game for the first time and not be part of an alliance. While learning how to play the game they will become frustrated because of the advantage given the alliances. The new players who don't land in a gal with a sympathetic mate who will explain the whole alliance business to them will give up and not play again.

It's a catch-22 kind of thing. New players will not win without alliances and alliances require referrals and other reasonable things and so I assume that few of the new players will play again. The first few rounds of this game were played and won by alliances without any hardcoded nonesense so why was it ever needed? I think allowing individiuals to gain a greater share of triumphs will pay off for Planetarion.

Making the game more exclusive and making winning the game more exclusives benefits the current players and of course they'll argue for it. The new player has no voice and so the disucussion becomes one sided. Nevertheless, consider PA's growth, which is important to everyone who wants PA to be here tomorrow.

[Appocomaster]

Yes, I *really* wasn't thinking clearly, my aunt and uncle's wedding yesterday. Thinking bed might be a good idea

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I preferred the idea of structure killers dying when they've been used to kill structures, tbh.

I do to :P
I am pretty dissapointed that idea hasnt been accepted yet as i know its what would work so much better.


http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=182728 for anyone who wants to support this idea.

And thats the only reason why I disagree with this idea just because the other one is a better idea.
2k voracean kill 20 of my structure my suiciding on them would make me feel a lot better than just somene sending some random extra fleet which they wouldnt send unless they know they can land with them on no matter who there at war with or not at war with.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Forest

Good idea.

I also like having a hard-code for alliance wars, and structure killers can only be used if attacking an alliance you are at war with.
Make a limit of only 2 alliances u cand eclare war on, so for instance, 1up could dcelare war on exil/lch, and only structure killers could be used on those two alliances.

Everyones at war
Its a war game.

[ANdrode]

Originally Posted by s|k

New players, who have landed here from browsing, searching, advertisement, or weblink, or maybe have heard of it etc, will play the game for the first time and not be part of an alliance. While learning how to play the game they will become frustrated because of the advantage given the alliances. The new players who don't land in a gal with a sympathetic mate who will explain the whole alliance business to them will give up and not play again.

imho, hardcoding alliances should be undone. The ETA advantage it gives people is just too big..
If you're not an alliance member, cos you just started playing, even your real life friends can't help you atm.

I would like to make fleets with structure scanners in it easier to scan. Like, if you include SK's in your attack fleet, the target can fleetscan you even if he only has unit scans and you have more blockers then he has amps.
That should enable people to be aware of SK's, and give attacking with them quite a big disadvantage, because it would be easier to defend.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by ANdrode

imho, hardcoding alliances should be undone. The ETA advantage it gives people is just too big..
If you're not an alliance member, cos you just started playing, even your real life friends can't help you atm.

But, with no eta bonuses, FI and CO would be unstoppable with alliance def. Unless you have ships appearing immediately upon launch, in which case, people would get screwed over by ships turning up 10 seconds before a tick anyway...

ComradeRob made a particularly good point about alliance scanners, and how about people who are jumping ship? These guys, in most cases, deserve to have their planet completely and utterly flattened, but would be immune to struct killers during their shipjumping period.

I still like the suiciding struct killers idea most of all.

[Neferti]

With the current ETA systems, hardcoded alliances are essential. In the old days, there were no such thing as fighter pods, and I believe fighters were faster than corvettes...

Suiciding structure killers would make sense. It would stop people bashing structures just cos they can.

[ANdrode]

Originally Posted by Gate

But, with no eta bonuses, FI and CO would be unstoppable with alliance def. Unless you have ships appearing immediately upon launch, in which case, people would get screwed over by ships turning up 10 seconds before a tick anyway...

I want the -1 alliance def eta to go away, and get -1 for def anyway. You remember the 'overburn defence'?
Alliance def eta disables people to play with higher ranked friends effectively - and i'm totally opposed to that.

Of course you can say 'hey, waht if people shipjump', but shipjumping is a natural thing.. that shouldn't be prohibited.
The only members you want in your alliance are the loyal ones anyway. If you keep someone from shipjumping because he would loose his fleet, it isn't a good member anyway, because his loyaltie is not with the alliance.

[Appocomaster]

So what's the point of alliances? unless you get some attack bonus instead?

[ANdrode]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

So what's the point of alliances? unless you get some attack bonus instead?

imho, the purpose of an ingame alliance is just... simple tools.
I haven't yet been convinced of the other advantages forcing an ingame alliance has, above being able to tag & prevent in-ally attacks with your members automatically..

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by ANdrode

imho, the purpose of an ingame alliance is just... simple tools.
I haven't yet been convinced of the other advantages forcing an ingame alliance has, above being able to tag & prevent in-ally attacks with your members automatically..

What. I send fi or co at you, then your alliance wont be able to cover it, only your gal. I cba to say more because it's so obvious...

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by sniborp

What. I send fi or co at you, then your alliance wont be able to cover it, only your gal. I cba to say more because it's so obvious...

i thought he said to have -1 ETA for all defence - thus from alliance or other sources would be able to defend you against FI or CO.

i think such a suggestion would have large impacts on the game dynamics - especially with regards to permitting Ziks to defend with stealers against ANY incoming to ANYONE and potentially exacerbating the situation with regards to zik stealing being too powerful etc.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

i thought he said to have -1 ETA for all defence - thus from alliance or other sources would be able to defend you against FI or CO.

i think such a suggestion would have large impacts on the game dynamics - especially with regards to permitting Ziks to defend with stealers against ANY incoming to ANYONE and potentially exacerbating the situation with regards to zik stealing being too powerful etc.

And if it applies to all def, more organised blocks will simply give their members a far greater pool of available def. As soon as the other block in incapable of overwhelming every other alliance in a night, not many attacks are going to land at all... and alliance players will still defend their allymates anyway.

Sorry, I just don't think this seems to be going anywhere :/

[barney]

Originally Posted by ANdrode

I want the -1 alliance def eta to go away, and get -1 for def anyway.

AWFULL, TERRIBLE HORRIBLE IDEA!!!!

we currently have a fun round with roid exchange being fast and fluent, this would make top players who know everyone, ever even more untouchable. and reduce the game to "woo hoo i have a bigger block than you!!!"

[laputa]

Originally Posted by s|k

Nevertheless, consider PA's growth, which is important to everyone who wants PA to be here tomorrow.

You out of all people are now talking about PA's growth and the importance of attracting and keeping new players?? Not sending out SK fleets to bomb people back to square one just for fun would be a good start! (cf. http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=185494)

[ANdrode]

Originally Posted by Gate

And if it applies to all def, more organised blocks will simply give their members a far greater pool of available def. As soon as the other block in incapable of overwhelming every other alliance in a night, not many attacks are going to land at all... and alliance players will still defend their allymates anyway.

I know it has a lot of visible disadvantages.
Though, you should also remember that by making the -1 traveltime available only in alliance (thus stopping rl friends deffing eachother from xan incs), you're making the game less attractive for people who like to play with friends, or newbies.
Effectively, you're stopping friends from joining the game 'cos they would get bashed without a chance anyway.

An overall -1 def travel time, could be abused by a block ofc. But, it wouldn't be much more effective if a block was retalling every single attacker.. They would even need less fleet value to do that..

I'd like to see it implemented, but to make it useable it should have some penalty on it (just as with overburn defence, which wasn't abused... and included the same basic idea)

[Gate]

Originally Posted by ANdrode

Of course you can say 'hey, waht if people shipjump', but shipjumping is a natural thing.. that shouldn't be prohibited.

If people dump their alliance and go to join the enemy, and prove to be disloyal, they still deserve to be smashed into the ground IMO; they shouldn't have some sort of protection because backstabbing is a natural thing to do!

Originally Posted by ANdrode

I know it has a lot of visible disadvantages.
Though, you should also remember that by making the -1 traveltime available only in alliance.... *snip*

I'm afraid I still feel that without something extra special to prevent this, it will simply result in the biggest players with the most friends being nigh untouchable. As it is, these newbies, shoudl they be willing to play the game, will hopefully get into an alliance (even a small one...) to start with and since they won't be involved in the major wars, things should just about balance out, as very few big alliances get big by having their players attacking smaller newbies.

Alliances like APA are vital to teh game too, for taking in newer players and teaching them; when I joined, ND were in this sort of position, they took me in, and combined with an amazing galaxy, really made me love the game.

[Fungi]

LOL how about removing SK from the game altogether


Problem solved.

[ANdrode]

Originally Posted by Gate

I'm afraid I still feel that without something extra special to prevent this, it will simply result in the biggest players with the most friends being nigh untouchable. As it is, these newbies, shoudl they be willing to play the game, will hopefully get into an alliance (even a small one...) to start with and since they won't be involved in the major wars, things should just about balance out, as very few big alliances get big by having their players attacking smaller newbies.

Alliances like APA are vital to teh game too, for taking in newer players and teaching them; when I joined, ND were in this sort of position, they took me in, and combined with an amazing galaxy, really made me love the game.

Isn't it already that the biggest players with the most friends, are almost impossible to touch?
Not only because they would get def, but also if a block would only organise good retals, imho they could almost never get defended against.

You all saw what happened to EX when a few non-napped Hydra planets tried to attack their highest ranked planet. 15% EX roids lost iirc, because of 1UP doing retals on defenders with their block?

What you probably haven't had in a while, is a big friend (t100) online, and eta 9 BS incoming, unable to get def from your allie (it's a nub allie..), which aren't covered, just because of that in-alliance eta. That's a *very* good way to frustrate starting players.. loosing 25% roids and 20% structs, just because a 'feature' that should make the game more attractive....

There are a million ways to make that possible, from a +1 eta on pods, to overburn def. I'd like to get that investigated (and this subthread should be split off, imho)

[Gate]

Originally Posted by ANdrode

Isn't it already that the biggest players with the most friends, are almost impossible to touch?

I wouldn't say so, having roided the top player twice this round. On my own.

Hell, attacking is far easier this round than it was in PaX, and in PaX, ND roided the top player with a fake (ND weren't anywhere near as good back then either ). As an example, the top 5 players:
1) lost 6.7k roids this round.
2) lost 1.4k roids this round.*
3) lost 1.7k roids this round.**
4) lost 6k roids this round.
5) lost 4.9k roids this round.

I wouldn't say that's untouchable.

*Is Angels, so is part of an alliance that has comparitively received hardly any incs.
**Has spent most of the round NAPd to eXilition, the most powerful enemy of his alliance.

What you probably haven't had in a while, is a big friend (t100) online, and eta 9 BS incoming, unable to get def from your allie (it's a nub allie..), which aren't covered, just because of that in-alliance eta. That's a *very* good way to frustrate starting players.. loosing 25% roids and 20% structs, just because a 'feature' that should make the game more attractive....

I've been in that position myself, I average 4 incs per night since PT400. Friends in other allies that can't help, but fakes work brilliantly, 1 bomber + 499 vsh from them appearing at eta9 looks and smells just like 500 peacekeepers and can persuade a recall; same for 1.5k harpies appearing at eta8 and looking like chims. Then again, most T100 players don't often have fleetslots spare, I know my ships are constantly busy...

There are a million ways to make that possible, from a +1 eta on pods, to overburn def. I'd like to get that investigated (and this subthread should be split off, imho)

I still think the best alliances will simply keep the ships for themselves and for their blocks. If players are willing to play actively, half of the game IMO is getting in an alliance and enjoying the social aspects... I'd just like to reiterate my previous post where I say that most big allies simply won't hit smaller allies when at war because it's a complete waste of fleets!