|
|
27 Sep 2014, 17:21
|
#101
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Yes there are one 1 Fi Race and only 1 Co race with pods. However both etd and Zik have built in Fi and Co ships and Fi and Co stealers.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
27 Sep 2014, 17:22
|
#102
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Not much scope for ship farming there then.
(I know, I know - it's impossible to prevent cheating by stats alone).
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 05:49
|
#103
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
something i like is the possibility to covop pods, and build a very nice fleet.
but for this, u need something to worth it.
Wraith its an example. a combo with Pirates and u can can hit FR and BS before any def fire; hard to stop!
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 05:53
|
#104
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
That well if you notice Xan sk's are ALSO Cr so for the "trollololers" that should make you happy.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 06:15
|
#105
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
and imho u should make cutlass and creditor better ships, this way, ppl will care in really play with zik/etd fi.co avaible fleets. u can nerf judge to compensate
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 06:47
|
#106
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Switched init on creditor and dealer so etd De fires appropriately last vs fi. Same time giving options for Etd Fi to exist.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 09:35
|
#107
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
All these decent shipcombos that lack roiders seem like fun, but do increase the reward for cheating. The guys that get crazy 'lucky' and steal the right ships right at the start of the round will benefit from it greatly. If it stays like this, I hope MH will pay extra close attention.
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 10:02
|
#108
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Well, Etd and Zik are easy to fill in their roid classes as Xan players will often 2x or even 3x pod only the 1st few nights and ziks are always creative about getting there steals especially since its not vs emp it might be interesting. The other classes however that will be up to MH to monitor since covop isnt "cheating"
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 10:08
|
#109
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiamat101
Well, Etd and Zik are easy to fill in their roid classes as Xan players will often 2x or even 3x pod only the 1st few nights and ziks are always creative about getting there steals especially since its not vs emp it might be interesting. The other classes however that will be up to MH to monitor since covop isnt "cheating"
|
Not covopping itself but if you have an agreement with someone you covop it is.
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 18:38
|
#110
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Well of course that is. But i've done the farm pods of another class thing w/o cheating.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 19:49
|
#111
|
NE
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 828
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
I spent the entire of last round cov opping Monroe for illusions.
Its doable, you just need to find a target who doesnt want to invest him security... A Jennifer Lawrence of Planetarion.
__________________
PEACE.
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 20:01
|
#112
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil05
I spent the entire of last round cov opping Monroe for illusions.
Its doable, you just need to find a target who doesnt want to invest him security... A Jennifer Lawrence of Planetarion.
|
Total Hostile Covert Ops: 260
Total Hostile Successful Covert Ops: 204
Against My Planet
Mission Total Damage Taken
Exploding Fist 54 Asteroids
Agent Defection 0 Agents
Security Guard Defection 0 Guards
Hacking : Science Database 3,163 RP
Warp Drive Manipulation 27,608 Ships
Information Black-out 2 Amplifiers
3 Distorters
Havoc 1 Constructions
Hacking : Resource Transfers 1,296,166 Resources
Government Subversion 0 Ticks
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 20:19
|
#113
|
NE
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 828
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD
Total Hostile Covert Ops: 260
Total Hostile Successful Covert Ops: 204
Against My Planet
Mission Total Damage Taken
Exploding Fist 54 Asteroids
Agent Defection 0 Agents
Security Guard Defection 0 Guards
Hacking : Science Database 3,163 RP
Warp Drive Manipulation 27,608 Ships
Information Black-out 2 Amplifiers
3 Distorters
Havoc 1 Constructions
Hacking : Resource Transfers 1,296,166 Resources
Government Subversion 0 Ticks
|
Yeah, you did awesome.
Exploding Fist 30 Asteroids
Agent Defection 0 Agents
Security Guard Defection 0 Guards
Hacking : Science Database 0 RP
Warp Drive Manipulation 11,564 Ships
Information Black-out 2 Amplifiers
2 Distorters
Havoc 3 Constructions
Hacking : Resource Transfers 0 Resources
Government Subversion 12 Ticks
Agents Lost 440
Me not so much.
__________________
PEACE.
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 22:38
|
#114
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
I liked the synergy(and dependence) between cath and xan fi/co fleets. Please keep that way. Viper and shee should stay the way they are.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
28 Sep 2014, 22:44
|
#115
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Thank you fortran for being someone that noticed that.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 06:22
|
#116
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Looks as though fi co seems kind of meh ATM. I don't see a natural target for them as they get bummed by most fr de classes.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 07:41
|
#117
|
Awesome
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Hague
Posts: 291
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Like they should. They are the smallest and most simple ship in the uni which already have the eta advantage
__________________
Apprime PR - taking away ur problems since 2008
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 09:39
|
#118
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain
Like they should. They are the smallest and most simple ship in the uni which already have the eta advantage
|
Looking at the stats, you shouldnt be able before the round to know what top alliances will go for as a strategy.
With these stats TER/ETD DE forts with some FI/CO bums out FI/CO/FR/DE/CR.
Last time Tia made stats he made sure that he made stats the seperated the top 4 alliance from everyone else.
Either you went with ter/zik forts, or you couldnt win basicly.
Not saying that fort stats themself are bad for the game, but alliances tend to play NAPTARION when fort stats are present.
Looking at this round p3ng/FL/BF/CT all had forts.
#1 were allied with #3, #5, #6 for majority of the round and majority of their incs was from alliances ranked in #4, #7, #8.
In the end it was 934 million value vs 575 million value.
All the top value alliances seemed to play strategies that involved having forts, correct me if im wrong.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 09:44
|
#119
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Looking at the stats, you shouldnt be able before the round to know what top alliances will go for as a strategy.
With these stats TER/ETD DE forts with some FI/CO bums out FI/CO/FR/DE/CR.
Last time Tia made stats he made sure that he made stats the seperated the top 4 alliance from everyone else.
Either you went with ter/zik forts, or you couldnt win basicly.
Not saying that fort stats themself are bad for the game, but alliances tend to play NAPTARION when fort stats are present.
Looking at this round p3ng/FL/BF/CT all had forts.
#1 were allied with #3, #5, #6 for majority of the round and majority of their incs was from alliances ranked in #4, #7, #8.
In the end it was 934 million value vs 575 million value.
All the top value alliances seemed to play strategies that involved having forts, correct me if im wrong.
|
p3n didnt go forts
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 10:03
|
#120
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Looking at the stats, you shouldnt be able before the round to know what top alliances will go for as a strategy.
With these stats TER/ETD DE forts with some FI/CO bums out FI/CO/FR/DE/CR.
Not saying that fort stats themself are bad for the game, but alliances tend to play NAPTARION when fort stats are present.
Looking at this round p3ng/FL/BF/CT all had forts.
#1 were allied with #3, #5, #6 for majority of the round and majority of their incs was from alliances ranked in #4, #7, #8.
In the end it was 934 million value vs 575 million value.
All the top value alliances seemed to play strategies that involved having forts, correct me if im wrong.
|
Okay, let's look at b-bitcher's logic:
First claim: Everyone will fort with these stats since there's only one viable combo
Second claim: p3ng/FL/BF/CT all had forts this previous round
Can you then please explain to me b-bitcher if all these alliances had forts, and alliances will all go DE fort next round, how come;
-Ultores- Demographics for p3nguins -
- 18 Cat Val(4367.2k) Score(6124k) Size(1037) XP(29.3k) |
- 3 Etd Val(2466k) Score(4669.3k) Size(1037) XP(36.7k) |
- 3 Ter Val(3962.3k) Score(5442.2k) Size(1051) XP(24.7k) |
- 10 Xan Val(5180.3k) Score(7584.7k) Size(1536) XP(40.1k) |
- 19 Zik Val(5570.1k) Score(7032.4k) Size(1567) XP(24.4k)
-Ultores- Demographics for Faceless -
- 4 Cat Val(3604.1k) Score(5300.9k) Size(933) XP(28.3k) |
- 5 Etd Val(4992.6k) Score(6354.8k) Size(540) XP(22.7k) |
- 32 Ter Val(5166.6k) Score(6302.4k) Size(1223) XP(18.9k) |
- 6 Xan Val(3790k) Score(4873.9k) Size(831) XP(18.1k) |
- 4 Zik Val(3613k) Score(4511.8k) Size(785) XP(15k)
-Ultores- Demographics for Conspiracy -
- 8 Cat Val(3104.2k) Score(5050.8k) Size(929) XP(32.4k) |
- 8 Etd Val(3993.1k) Score(6479.4k) Size(1250) XP(41.4k) |
- 30 Ter Val(4095.8k) Score(5614.4k) Size(969) XP(25.3k) |
- 15 Xan Val(4663.5k) Score(6481.8k) Size(1211) XP(30.3k)
-Ultores- Demographics for Black Flag -
- 20 Cat Val(3694.1k) Score(5441.1k) Size(845) XP(29.1k) |
- 13 Etd Val(3641.5k) Score(5955.3k) Size(988) XP(38.6k) |
- 11 Ter Val(4107.1k) Score(5818.1k) Size(893) XP(28.5k) |
- 1 Xan Val(2806.5k) Score(4246.5k) Size(323) XP(24k) |
- 16 Zik Val(4524k) Score(6180.7k) Size(1083) XP(27.6k)
... these four "fort alliances" had COMPLETELY different race strategies?
I'm gonna make a claim here, it's a crazy claim I know, it's hard to believe, but if you stay with me for just a tiny second here...... could it be... COULD IT POSSIBLY BE that:
ITS NOT THE STATS' FAULT, IT'S THE IDIOTIC NAPPING ******* HC'S fault that napping and forting takes place.
It doesn't matter what kind of stats you have, if alliance HCs want to nap all their rivals they will regardless.
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 10:09
|
#121
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Also, if the "whole universe" is gonna go Ter/Etd DE then HAVE FUN landing on ingal dragons.
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 10:11
|
#122
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
By the way Tia, I'd make the clipper a kill ship. Zik's dont want to steal BS, so there should be a ship targetting BS with kill.
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 11:36
|
#123
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plaguuu
p3n didnt go forts
|
Surely we had a lot of whine when we kept hitting your "forts"
If i had the spam on p3nguins from earlier round im pretty sure 75% of your members would be in 3+ gals.
You, BF, and FL all offered us "fort avoidances", wich we ofc didnt take as we didnt have forts.
I could be wrong, been a while since i looked at the !bumchums
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 11:48
|
#124
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by isildurx
Okay, let's look at b-bitcher's logic:
First claim: Everyone will fort with these stats since there's only one viable combo
Second claim: p3ng/FL/BF/CT all had forts this previous round
Can you then please explain to me b-bitcher if all these alliances had forts, and alliances will all go DE fort next round, how come;
... these four "fort alliances" had COMPLETELY different race strategies?
I'm gonna make a claim here, it's a crazy claim I know, it's hard to believe, but if you stay with me for just a tiny second here...... could it be... COULD IT POSSIBLY BE that:
ITS NOT THE STATS' FAULT, IT'S THE IDIOTIC NAPPING ******* HC'S fault that napping and forting takes place.
It doesn't matter what kind of stats you have, if alliance HCs want to nap all their rivals they will regardless.
|
Where did i say that all forts had the same race strat this round?
CT/Faceless had DE forts
BF had CR/BS forts
p3nguins had a lot of zik/cat CR fort thing going on.
And where did i say all alliances will go DE forts?
Basicly there is NOTHING to stop BS, so i thought there would be no reason to state the obvious.
Im sure Tia will come up with something saying that the EMP 165% efficient is sufficent, and make a nice calc out of it with race combos that doesnt match up very well.
Fort avoidances are pretty efficient to make sure your members dont end up in gals in the bottom tier, and alliances forting usualy have no other option than making such deals to keep up with the other alliances.
All im asking for is stats that allow more than one efficient strategy concerning more than one race.
CR is viable, but i think ETD/TER beats the shit out of ZIK/CAT with these stats.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 11:58
|
#125
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Surely we had a lot of whine when we kept hitting your "forts"
If i had the spam on p3nguins from earlier round im pretty sure 75% of your members would be in 3+ gals.
You, BF, and FL all offered us "fort avoidances", wich we ofc didnt take as we didnt have forts.
I could be wrong, been a while since i looked at the !bumchums
|
Since when is a 3 man gal a fort when the gal consists of 10+ planets?
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 12:11
|
#126
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
Since when is a 3 man gal a fort when the gal consists of 10+ planets?
|
Since they changed the exile and BP setup?
All the "fort avoidances" we were offered were 3+ afaik.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 12:23
|
#127
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
With so few gals with so many planets in each you're bound to end up with a few "forts" and there will also be a bp or two of friends in same ally, you said p3n went forts and we didnt.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 12:34
|
#128
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Since they changed the exile and BP setup?
All the "fort avoidances" we were offered were 3+ afaik.
|
I dunno pal, I just don't see how having 30% of your gal in your alliance makes it a fort
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 12:45
|
#129
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plaguuu
With so few gals with so many planets in each you're bound to end up with a few "forts" and there will also be a bp or two of friends in same ally, you said p3n went forts and we didnt.
|
P3ng HAD "forts", and they wanted a fort avoidance with the alliance i was in. Better?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 12:54
|
#130
|
respect, unity, order
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 280
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
p3n had gals with BP's. We clearly wanted you to avoid those.
gals with BP's != forts
__________________
Together We Stand Divided We Fall
[Ðragons]
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 16:58
|
#131
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Wow since when did having a Bp = a fort?! a Fort in my mind = 5+ planets of the same ally. Just because we use the word "fort avoidance" doesn't mean they are fort galaxies, and I would love to see you try and pull off a fort in ST stats. It just doesn't work DE forts a) don't target cr/co/de hmm that 3 classes and your forced to build either, off class ships that will not be able to defend them, or build BS which is splitting value from your De so why not just go BS? BB it seems to me that you don't have a problem with the stats you have a problem with me AND you have a problem with the game itself. Why don't you do us all a favor and just leave SD to the big boys and keep your thoughts in AD because you have yet to contribute a single piece of CONSTRUCTIVE help at all. Just more Bitching.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 17:17
|
#132
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
All im asking for is stats that allow more than one efficient strategy concerning more than one race.
CR is viable, but i think ETD/TER beats the shit out of ZIK/CAT with these stats.
|
OK lets look it over.
Your Etd/Ter De.
Which means that you have to rely on judge and Phoenix to deal with Co incs. Well Zik fire before your phoenix and judge hit the cat co at 130%.
If you decide to use BS to cover Cr incs thats fine your prolly ok till Cath values start getting high then you crumble because etd Bs has no armor vs Zik bs.
Ters will be fine vs Fi unless spiders start coming since peg get hits at 180%, the etds however will not be fine since EVERY fi hits before they do.
Vice versa vs Fr the etds should be fine but the terrans once again EVERY other fr fires before they do given baliffs are cloaked and can be faked its still going to be hard.
Then there is Bs which all ships fire before yours. Though you might be able to rely on your value in De to help keep your planets alive but.... then you wont be able to cover either of the 3 other classes that your DE don't target.
So lets Review: Strong vs Fi( only the terrans) Strong vs fr(only the etds) Weak vs Bs(Both ter and Etd) Weak vs Co(unless def whoring) Weak vs Cr(unless mass value in Bs) Weak vs De(unless mass value in Bs)
Seems like your better off going Bs than going De.... Atleast in forts.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 17:25
|
#133
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Tia.
zik dont got CO.
They dont even got anti CO in eta themself
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 17:26
|
#134
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Tia.
ZIK CR fire after ter AND etd BS.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 17:48
|
#135
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
So lets have a quick sum up:
TER/ETD combo
DE Freelands: XAN/ZIK
BS Freelands: TER/XAN/ZIK/ETD
XAN/ZIK combo
FR Freelands: ZIK/TER/XAN
I wont bother discussing the EMP.
This looks pretty familary with the stats of R55 dosnt it?
Is this the kind of stats we want?
You said yourself you dont give a f*ck about what strats are viable.
You just seem to make sure that every race has a "solo" option on something, and every race has it weakness against one "solo" race.
By going TER/ETD forts/full BPs, and having a odd amount of cath that can either exile around or stay in fenced gals, you are basicly covered against everything.
This is R55 all over again, except you changed ZIK with ETD, too make it even worse
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 17:55
|
#136
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Butcher, could you please stop posting here?
I understand you have some kinda hate for Tia, but this really isnt helping with a discussion about the shipstats this round.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 18:22
|
#137
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
He's got a point though. BS was really good in round 58, and they don't look any worse this round. At least the effs of the BS can't be very high(I haven't looked)
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 18:24
|
#138
|
Old Skool
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 278
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
BS is by far the best class looking at just inits and targeters
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 18:32
|
#139
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shhhhhhh
Butcher, could you please stop posting here?
I understand you have some kinda hate for Tia, but this really isnt helping with a discussion about the shipstats this round.
|
You are clearly clueless if you dont see what TIamata is doing with these stats.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 18:35
|
#140
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
You are clearly clueless if you dont see what TIamata is doing with these stats.
|
Well, let's just trust the other players that they will see it too. With all your flaming about previous rounds it just makes the arguement itself weaker and distracts from it.
And, compared to last round, at least this time theres an effective way to stop BS fleets with the Wraith. People still think BS is too powerful atm?
Are the current efficiencies intended? Theres some really low armor steal ships.
Last edited by Shhhhhhh; 29 Sep 2014 at 18:57.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 18:56
|
#141
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shhhhhhh
Well, let's just trust the other players that they will see it too. With all your flaming about previous rounds it just makes the arguement itself weaker and distracts from it.
|
Previous rounds just proofs that what ever he says, he has said before and been prooven wrong.
Go look at r55 stats, and tell me how far from this round those are
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 19:35
|
#142
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Terran Armor dropped ~~ 10%
Dragon damage dropped ~~ 10%
Roach-> Fr T1 De
Added Wasp Cath Fr Pod
Cath Armor decreased ~~ 20%
Zik armor Slight Buff to steal ships only.
Xan Fr sligh dmg buff.
Etd ships stats adjusted to meet new class standards
Also B-Butcher your welcome to join me in #beta and share with me suggestions. However this toxic attitude you got on SD has to stop. There is a place where if you want to flame you can, but every other person here has made suggestions about changes to make except for you. So either start being constructive on leave.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 19:46
|
#143
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Oh im being constructive.
Just wait for more people to enter the discussion, so they can see what you are up to.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 20:28
|
#144
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
More Big changes:
Xan fr -> Xan De
Revanant now init 8
Etd De-> Etd Fr
Baliff changed to FR
Added Avenger De T1 Fr Emp init 1
Creditor Fi->co T1 Fi Steal-> Norm init 9
Also Subsequent changes
Etd Bs-> Etd Cr
Zik Cr-> Zik Bs
Changes due to targeting and to break up the "etd/ter" powerhouse fleet combo.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
Last edited by Tiamat101; 29 Sep 2014 at 20:58.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 22:27
|
#145
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Few more changes:
Avenger: Emp-> Steal T1-> Fi
Creditor: Co->Fi Norm->Steal Init 9->19
Clipper Norm->Steal Init 9->20
Cutter Init 5->7
Baliff Init 7->5
Also changed Init on Co/Fr interaction
1st fire Widow init 2
2nd fire Viper init 5
3rd fire Gryphon init 6
4th fire Pulsar init 7
5th fire Thief init 18
6th fire Corsair init 19
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
29 Sep 2014, 23:27
|
#146
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Done with changes for a bit will be back to look at comments in a few hours.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
30 Sep 2014, 03:53
|
#147
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Cr is shit now
__________________
#braSilFTW
Last edited by Joseph; 30 Sep 2014 at 03:59.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2014, 04:36
|
#148
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Spectre init to 7 so it fires After Banshee.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
30 Sep 2014, 05:15
|
#149
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiamat101
Spectre init to 7 so it fires After Banshee.
|
Cr cant kill any fr. All fr kills cr tia.
Terran shoot before fi, de and cr. "they can afford to take damage".
__________________
#braSilFTW
Last edited by Joseph; 30 Sep 2014 at 05:23.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2014, 05:42
|
#150
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Stats - Round 59 and beyond
Terran shoot before Cr?
Wraith Cruiser Bs - - Cloak 4 0 90 115 78 900 900 900 333 425 Xan
Dragon Battleship Cr - - Norm 6 0 235 155 94 1800 1600 1600 470 310 Ter
Rogue Battleship Cr - - Steal 19 0 250 240 95 1800 1800 2000 446 428 Zik
Yes terran shoot before Fi and De, lets see WHAT RACE HAS BOTH Fi and De Pods, ill give you a hint XAN! This is by design, there are reasons why none of the other terran targeters have any init what so ever. Oh darn they have 2 +1 eta ships that 1st fire(before emp) on lower eta ships. Its like that almost every round.
Rounds that Ter fr/de has fired before xan fi/co: R58/ R54/ R53/ R52/R51(sameinit)/ R50/ R48/ R46(sameinit)/ R39(sameinit)/ R38(sameinit)/ R37/
7 out of the last 21 rounds Ter fr/de has fired first, 4 of them have fire at the same time. So those with MATH skills say 10 out of 21 rounds xan fires 1st. So its not out the realm of probable that Ter fire before them this round. Terran have other weaknesses. just not to Xan fleets.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
Last edited by Tiamat101; 30 Sep 2014 at 05:57.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02.
| |