|
|
18 May 2016, 11:03
|
#151
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Possibly, but many of the fleets based on cr or bs have big ally def problems which is most damaging to just those "mid" and "low" those alliances that benefited most from ally def improvements last round or else have very spread out fleets. If anything I would be more concerned about what you are presumably calling the "upper" tier of alliances who are good at regularly prelaunching defence who should benefit most from such a stats set. That is of course not to say that you won't be correct but there is certainly a downside for them.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
18 May 2016, 11:23
|
#152
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 297
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoXiouS
Only thing disturbing me a bit more than anything else in Pats set is the targeting being a tad unfair towards the lower hulls... FI and CO targeted by each other and FRDE, FRDE targeted by each other and FICO + CR on FR, BS on DE, CR targeted by FR and BS, BS targeted by DE and CR. I can live with that ofc, but kinda makes me feel that (borrowing BBs words) the "mid" and "low" tier alliances will mass hulls 3.
|
I dont really understand that comment, targetting looks symetric.
Fi - Co , FR
Co - Fi , FR, DE
FR - Fi , Co, DE, CR
DE - Co , FR, CR, BS
CR - FR , DE, BS
BS - DE , CR
2-3-4-4-3-2.
|
|
|
18 May 2016, 13:44
|
#153
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
I am hoping that this is just because SKs are always left until last but at the moment their cost seems really weird compared to other ships and each other. For example the Termite is really cheap for a battleship, while on the other hand the Liquidator, a cruiser, is much much more expensive than it and is more expensive than all the other etd cr ships.
This of course affects the calcs too; the termite is frozen long before everything else in a cat bs fleet while the Liquidator is merrily going on its demolishing structures while everything else around it is out of action. http://xmas.planetarion.com/bcalc.pl?id=xmrfuxjtbfku3e6
Thanks to Drew for pointing this out.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
18 May 2016, 15:02
|
#154
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
the termite is frozen long before everything else in a cat bs fleet while the Liquidator is merrily going on its demolishing structures while everything else around it is out of action
|
This is entirely due to the ERes of the respective ships. Cost has nothing to do with it, except indirectly: stats makers are naturally more inclined to give expensive ships higher ERes. The bcalc doesn't look at ship cost, though.
This does not affect the validity of the rest of your post, though, it's just a small nitpick.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
18 May 2016, 15:03
|
#155
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
[re: booji] This is because my draft did not have them in attack classes and Jintao has moved them there recently, as I made them before SKs could only be used in wars (and because I never bother with SKs until the rest is balanced).
Thanks Drew, we'll get on that soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
This is entirely due to the ERes of the respective ships. Cost has nothing to do with it, except indirectly: stats makers are naturally more inclined to give expensive ships higher ERes. The bcalc doesn't look at ship cost, though.
This does not affect the validity of the rest of your post, though, it's just a small nitpick.
|
It's an important distinction though, because I like using cost differentials to amplify a ship's strengths like the Mantis vs Bs. It's cheap, therefore very good flak, but actually has the highest ERes out of all Cruisers.
|
|
|
18 May 2016, 16:51
|
#156
|
Anti-Paperboy
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 174
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
|
Leave me out of your lunacy this is my first post on this thread so clearly i have been influencing the discussion.
|
|
|
20 May 2016, 18:14
|
#157
|
The evil stats guy
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 242
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Congradulations patrikc, your set will be run for R67. Appoco will announce it officially soon.
Thanks to all those who helped and submitted sets. I look forward to seeing what sets are offered for R68.
|
|
|
20 May 2016, 18:25
|
#158
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
Closing this as ship stats now final
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59.
| |