Higher cap% in R9?

[Heartshunter]

Wouldn't it be better to raise the cap% for R9?

First of all, there will not be many newbies around who needs protection, secondly, most of us realise that itll be very hard next round to get roids. All private galaxies (you only need 1 person to keep an eye on the galnews, the rest can sleep), most players have an alliance and ofcourse the ever shrinking universe aren't making it easier.
Another point is that (something I've always found flawed in the game), once ratio's start dropping, its going to be difficult to get roids for a decent price. Multiple times in R8, I could barely take a target smaller then half my size simply because if i would land with a fleet which would give me full cap, the target inflicted so much damage, that it was hardly worth getting his roids. The 'usual' strategy for such targets was sending a (huge) overkill and a seperate podfleet to make sure your target flees. If it would be more profitable to get roids from such a target, this strategy becomes less valid, and it would be easier for the target to get defense too.

Another option to make things slightly more profitable would be to increase the score per initiated roid, which would enable you to send a slightly bigger fleet and get full cap anyway.

[Jonas]

it will only make bigger difference from the big to the small...

good as it is

[Al_zz]

Actually if you up the score for initiated roids attacking would be easier as the planetscore of the defending planet would be higher and therefore make the cap better.

Also it makes it easier to drop a huge player in score by taking his roids even when he runs his fleet.

Makling the cap higher than the current 15% I think is not a good idea. Already now you can lose over 40% of your roids in 3 ticks. That seems enough. If you think attacking is just too difficult due to the amount of damage you recieve on attacks than it seems better to think about making the stats less kill heavy than on increasing maxcap%.

hAl

[Madina]

Originally posted by Al_zz
Actually if you up the score for initiated roids attacking would be easier as the planetscore of the defending planet would be higher and therefore make the cap better.

Also it makes it easier to drop a huge player in score by taking his roids even when he runs his fleet.

agreed and a dancing banana for good measure

[K03N]

Originally posted by Jonas
it will only make bigger difference from the big to the small...

good as it is

seconded

[Biw_biw]

Actually if you up the score for initiated roids attacking would be easier as the planetscore of the defending planet would be higher and therefore make the cap better.

I think thats a great idea too...might ask that in creators hour

[Drago Sunsoar]

The capping rules have been a disaster from the day they were made.

Piggybacking r4, resource stockpiling, etc.

The only good thing about it is that it makes farming harder.

15% flat cap rate, with no stupid formulas would be best. And immunity for ppl 15% your score.

Stockpiled resources should also give as much score as finished ships, and the 100M resource cap should be removed.

[Hicks]

20% flat rate cap would be nice it would certainly allow asteroids to move around more freely and make attacking more profitable (Which in my view is what makes the game fun). I would also like to see the downgrading of the 20% rule back to 10% all it did was increase stagnation and frustration among large players but never to the extent where power blocks broke up. By the time players are large enough for it to have an impact farming is no longer an issue and I hope no one is naive enough to think newbies who need protection still play this game.

I'd still like to see a variable cap rate based on the size of the planet your attacking in relation to your own score. This would stimulate people to team up and hit bigger players.

[Telest]

Personally, I think that the capping SHOULD relate to how much ships you send, but not quite to the extent it is now. It could start out at ~12% for sending equal fleetscore to targets score, then go up/down by ~2% each time you drop 50% of your fleet, so going with half target's score would give you 14% cap, 1/4th would give 16% capture and so forth. Maximum cap around 20% perhaps. You could capture 20% in one tick by overkill fleet making the target flee, but they could usually pull back for the second tick, if they are smart, that is.

Equal fleetscore -> 12%
Double fleetscore ->10%
Quadruple fleetscore ->8%
Eighfold fleetscore -> not allowed
Half fleetscore -> 14%
Quarter fleetscore -> 16%
One-eight fleetscore -> 18%
one-sixteenth fleetscore -> 20% (maximum)

Obviously a continuous scale, so adding/removing a few ships wouldn't affect the cap by 2% in most cases

I just think this could add A LOT more initiative to perfecting the fleet, since there's no 15% limit, nor is the 8% you get with 4x (Xan can easily kill at this efficiency) an unreasonable number.

To allow players to lose fleet without, perhaps 25% salvege for attacker and 50% for the defender?

Just my thoughts anyway.

[Radium-^]

Originally posted by Heartshunter
Wouldn't it be better to raise the cap% for R9?

Raising cap in a round that will have so few players will only make the threat of stagnation much quicker.

[Kileman]

Leave asteroid capping % as it is, and remove the artifical attacking planet score limits completly :@
________
Marijuana card

[hAl]

That so called artificial limt of 20% is fine. Leave it in !!! Only a few big planets have problems with this rule and especially those in the already winning alliance/block. The rule is to protect the weak and clearly with PA alliances as it is, the weak gals need protection. More even !!!

hAl

[Kileman]

Originally posted by hAl
That so called artificial limt of 20% is fine. Leave it in !!! Only a few big planets have problems with this rule and especially those in the already winning alliance/block. The rule is to protect the weak and clearly with PA alliances as it is, the weak gals need protection. More even !!!

hAl

The rule is to annoy the big, stagnate the game, discourage achievement, encourage resource hoarding and force big planets to attack the 'bigger weaker' planets. IE the planets in the alliance thats getting its ass kicked that just happen to be doing well enough to stay in the top planets target range, despite his/her roid ratio :@
________
Michigan medical marijuana

[Jester]

If anything lower it. Less people means any wars are going to need to be more drawn out if the political landscape is to be anything but r5ish.

Jester

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Jester667
If anything lower it. Less people means any wars are going to need to be more drawn out if the political landscape is to be anything but r5ish.

Jester

Have you been sniffing glue again?

Lowering the cap would be catastrophical in a universe where ETA 4-5 defense is freely available. All it needs is one semi-decent defense fleet to make roiding too expensive.

[Maddix]

I'd agree with a higher cap, people will be willing to lose more for the roids if they get more and thus the frequency of battles will increase and it will make defending (which is far easier in a smaller universe) 'less easy'

[Troll]

Farmers could get more too ofc

[Jester]

Originally posted by ParraCida
<drivel>

No. I did leave out that only changing the round by lowering cap would be a bad thing. But lets be honest, in a universe with only 2-4k players, raising cap is going to lead to the round ending so fast the Triad's victory in r3 would look sluggish and poorly executed.

Jester

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Jester667
<nonsense> (well you started it)

I think raising the cap would be an excellent counter for the much tougher defense in Round 9. It has been confirmed that OB Def for 2 ticks will say, parallels and clusters will have at least ETA -1 travel bonuses. As I already described in my thread, attacking will be hell. Raising the cap might not be te best way to 'fix' things, but it certainly offers some counter-weight.