[Discuss] X-factor in scans

[Lord Skar]

I heard a lot of ppl saying the X-factor in scans is too annying (most when scanning BS-incs...) So how about letting the X-factor depend on how many amps you got more than you target got distorders...

like if you got the same amount = high X-factor
twise the amps = no X-factor

also opens to being able to scan targets with more dists.. ex with a 75-100% X-factor???

makes it worth the while to leep building either...

[Kal]

interesting idea

[Banned]

Terrible idea. This forces people to rely on scanners.

[TheRat]

People allready rely on scanners

[TheRat]

Besides, you could make it random but with the factor. So if you have 1 amp, the window of distortion = 25% (there could also be a lower amp/dist ratio which is possible to scan with). And the better amps you have the more acurate it gets.

[mist]

the fact that the system is already broken seems a terrible reason to break it further

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Kal

interesting idea

agreed

[mist]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

agreed

justify it.

-mist

[Gerbie]

First of all I belive distorters are much too powerfull atm.

Without good scanners an alliance cannot function. I dislike the fact that people need to sacrifice their chances of doing well for the good of their alliance. Ofc there's always people who like to be usefull while not being able to play seriously themselves. But in smaller alliances it's usually people sacrificing themselves for their alliance. That is bad.

This would make distorters usefull, but not so powerfull a player cannot attack a decent target without the help of a scanner.

[mist]

i agree that alliance scanners are a bad thing.

however, afaik it takes just as much time to build blockers as it does amps. therefore, the planet with the blockers has sacrificed just as much as anyone building the amps to scan them (don't you need more blockers than amps, hence they've had to sacrifices more?). therefore, i think the solution to your 'sacrifice' problem lies in making mass scanning less feasable so that everyone has to build amps if they want to scan people with blockers. as such i'm not at all convinced by your argument.

also, this idea encouages scanners rather than discouraging them, so your argument seems to shoot itself in the foot.

-mist

[Judge]

I find myself at a loss to understand why people consider Alliance Scanners a bad thing ?

It is a valid tactic for all alliances to allow there agressive players the freedom to build ships while others take care of the scanning/covops/defence.

It is after all a Team game

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by mist

i agree that alliance scanners are a bad thing.

however, afaik it takes just as much time to build blockers as it does amps. therefore, the planet with the blockers has sacrificed just as much as anyone building the amps to scan them (don't you need more blockers than amps, hence they've had to sacrifices more?).

Yes, the planet with the distorters also made a sacrifice in order not to get attacked all the time. I think this idea will make distorters slightly less usefull, hence making it less attracktive for people to build them, making the game a bit more of a wargame and less of a sim-game.

therefore, i think the solution to your 'sacrifice' problem lies in making mass scanning less feasable so that everyone has to build amps if they want to scan people with blockers. as such i'm not at all convinced by your argument.

It might not be sufficient to make scan-planets no longer a must-have for all alliances. I support other alternatives.

also, this idea encouages scanners rather than discouraging them, so your argument seems to shoot itself in the foot.

-mist

I disagree, but it also comes down to the way it is implemented. It could be implemented in a way this work very well or the implementation could ruin the entire idea.

[mist]

if you make it so that more amps means less randomness then people will want their scans done with the maximum number of amps, which will naturally lead to them wanting scan planets.

how do you think it makes scan planets less neccessary?

also, if you want to stop people using distorters i think you should simply remove them and solve the problem that way. making them less useful, without deminishing the time they take to build will turn them in to a newbie trap
-mist

[Kal]

it makes scanners less neccessary but more useful - you would be able to scan someone with fewer amps than you would need now, so the small alliances might at least have a clue as to what some evil person with loads of amps has - of course its still better to have more amps as perhaps it should be otherwise not much point in having amps at all, but this would probably help the smaller alliances while having litle affect on the large alliances

[mist]

i disagree, if you're going to do this you might as well just remove the random factor and be done with it

[Orion Treet]

Random factor doesn't matter much anyways cause if you attack you usually send more than you need anyways, it usually only makes a small dif and you can gues since most people have even numbers of ships (rounded of to 100's, 1000's etc. So with 2-3 unitscans you know with decent certainty what he has, or with such a small margin it doesn't matter.

[Appocomaster]

change scanning so the ratio of distorters:amps changes the accuracy.
% random factor = amps/ distorters.
% random factor is something like:
1 =< (10*distorters)/amps =< 100
(i.e. distorters can be anywhere between 0.1x and 10x as big as amps)
This means that when distorters = amps, interference = 10%.
It would also mean less scan planets etc, as once you get 1 amp you can always scan to some extent. Then it just becomes a matter of the scan technologies.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Orion Treet

Random factor doesn't matter much anyways cause if you attack you usually send more than you need anyways, it usually only makes a small dif and you can gues since most people have even numbers of ships (rounded of to 100's, 1000's etc. So with 2-3 unitscans you know with decent certainty what he has, or with such a small margin it doesn't matter.

A lot of people don't send that much more than necessary. If you take into account possible scan % variations and defence you'll send twice as many ships, completely overkilling targets.
This is when overkilling people 40% your value occurs

[Lord Skar]

Any chance to get a poll on this??

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Lord Skar

Any chance to get a poll on this??

on what? keeping or ditching the random distortions in scans?

[Lord Skar]

yep

[noah02]

Get rid of distorters and make ppl buy waves instead again like the old days.
Whats the point in having instant scans to use as you like.
having to buy them in advance first was a lot better.
And i always have 500k of each resource available for scans but having to pay for them would i spend all that on scans?
I dunno.
But get rid of amps and distorters someone can always scan for you unless there a noob and are just fooked anyways coz u just get bashed. No Amps and Distorters then everyone can scan for themselves and use them resources up them selves.
Stupid idea i know but i dont care thats just my opinion.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Lord Skar

Any chance to get a poll on this??

polls on these forums are utterly meaningless.

-mist

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

polls on these forums are utterly meaningless.

-mist

Come up with a better way of sampling the opinion of pa players then. Maybe a poll on the portal?

[mist]

i'm going to refer you to awakey on why the opinion of the majority is also largely worthless

[Mek]

kepp the x-factor...i think its better to have a randomness to scans than actually knowing what they have....its more fun

[mist]

yes, because blatant luck makes the game more skillful.

[Mek]

Originally Posted by mist

yes, because blatant luck makes the game more skillful.

i couldnt quite tell if this post was scarcasm or not...

[mist]

they don't have a frothing at the mouth smiley :/

[Kal]

I can see and understand both sides of this which is better I do not yet know

[Kal]

from talking to people in the biger alliances they justtend to ginore the uncertianties in scans and add 10% onto everything, so maybe we shoudl just get rid of uncertainty...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

from talking to people in the biger alliances they justtend to ginore the uncertianties in scans and add 10% onto everything, so maybe we shoudl just get rid of uncertainty...

No, the uncertainty is good. People do make mistakes due to it.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Banned

No, the uncertainty is good. People do make mistakes due to it.

which people though is the question

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

which people though is the question

Why does that matter?

[Remy]

Originally Posted by mist

yes, because blatant luck makes the game more skillful.

how? blatant luck is the same a throwing a dice. Pure luck, no skill required. On the other hand, if there was a way to predict the outcome of a dice by the way you throw it, then skill would be required: throwing skill.

luck -> less skill

as i usually say with suggestions, you must think what the overall consequences are when you change something about the game.

Ok, here is my analysis:

More random/x-factor in the scanning process (no matter how it is implemented): more chance you will get a succesfull scan on people with high dists compared to their amps. So what happens? people will all save more resources to keep trying to scan. Repeated scanning -> success eventually. This wil benefit larger players more, as they can more easily afford to save resources.

No random/x-factor: nothing changes. People with more dists will have less other structures. People who want to have a good chance of success -> also less other structures.

Imho, changing the scanning method simply requires slightly other way of playing, but nothing drastically changes in the game. More random -> more luck -> less skill & more surprises.

And some1 (gerbie i think) asked: why do people think alliance scanners are a bad thing? I don't think its bad. They make alliances run smoothly. If you are not part of an alliancem, you are either in trouble, or you must spend more on distorters. Maybe the lack of scans will entice them to join an alliance.

The (partly) randomisation of scans will not make scanners obsolete. At best they will get somewhat less requests.

I think pa crew has enough other matetrs that will make more difference. If you look at kals APPROVED feature suggestion list, they have enuf work to do :P

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Remy

how? blatant luck is the same a throwing a dice. Pure luck, no skill required. On the other hand, if there was a way to predict the outcome of a dice by the way you throw it, then skill would be required: throwing skill.

Wow, you really missed the irony there, didn't you?

[Ferretus]

An interesting idea but I hate it simply because I hate scanners with a passion as they (in my opinion) have a detrimental affect on the game.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Ferretus

An interesting idea but I hate it simply because I hate scanners with a passion as they (in my opinion) have a detrimental affect on the game.

In what way are the detrimental ?

[Remy]

Originally Posted by Banned

Wow, you really missed the irony there, didn't you?

I wasn't sure :P So I decided to post a reply

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Remy

I wasn't sure :P So I decided to post a reply

Sometimes it's better to be silent and thought a fool, than open your mouth and confirm the suspicion.