|
3 Nov 2004, 16:23
|
#1
|
Forever Newb
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
|
Random targets.
I've been out of the gmae for a while now but I really miss random targeting, or at least primary secondary targeting. Used to be if you had ships that had no more primary or secondary targets left they'd randomly fire at things. Me being a Cathaar would really appreciate that as Terrans rape me constantly.
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 17:20
|
#2
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Random targets.
Then people will just buy whatever ship in the podclass that does most damage and use that constantly. What does that solve?
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 17:30
|
#3
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: Random targets.
Random firing is the antithesis of strategy.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 17:54
|
#4
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Random targets.
And with the current setup for damage and armor (ie no weaponspeed/agility) there's no real point in adding second targets at all.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 18:50
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14
|
Re: Random targets.
I feel the same way, not a full reversion to random targets but a reversion to weaponspeed and agility and at least put in secondary targets, if not tertiary, I destroyed a Xan player today as a Zik and it was mainly because about half his ships could have never targeted anything I had regardless of any subversion I used. There is something wrong with this impunity. Also in defense if I am attacking and lose all my Cutters I become completely defenseless against terran attackers for at least 40 ticks, If another type of ship I had could bridge that production gap the game would be a lot better. I stopped playing for about 3 rounds, what was the reason for the elimination of weapon speed and agility anyways?
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 18:54
|
#6
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCEagle
I stopped playing for about 3 rounds, what was the reason for the elimination of weapon speed and agility anyways?
|
Simplification. And I'm pretty sure it was the right thing to do. It was possible to do insane things with wpsd/agility. This way it's a lot harder to mess up the stats.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 19:33
|
#7
|
Forever Newb
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
|
Re: Random targets.
Except as a Cathaar I have no defence at all against a terran fleet if all they send is detryoers, as they have destroyers that target frigates and fire upon them before I have a chance to fire at their destroyers at all. So I am completely defenseless against terrans.
I really enjoyed the old system.
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 19:55
|
#8
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhenOxyAttacks
Except as a Cathaar I have no defence at all against a terran fleet if all they send is detryoers, as they have destroyers that target frigates and fire upon them before I have a chance to fire at their destroyers at all.
|
This is done by design. The stats design for this round is based the rock/paper/scissors principle. Cathaar are scissors to Terran's rock. I think this is a flaw we're going to have to live with this round. Next round will hopefully see better stats.
I suggest you avoid building Defenders and get Pulsars/Chimera/Cutters for def. You can probably get some ingal swapping with other races.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 20:25
|
#9
|
fanboy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 492
|
Re: Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Simplification. And I'm pretty sure it was the right thing to do. It was possible to do insane things with wpsd/agility. This way it's a lot harder to mess up the stats.
|
It's amazing how PATeam are able to accomplish the impossible though.
__________________
Ascendancy, former [ 1UP] & Ministry.
FOUNDER OF THE OFFICIAL ASCENDANCY LADY GAGA FAN CLUB
ASCENDANCY DEMOLITION MAN
|
|
|
21 Nov 2004, 16:09
|
#10
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Random targets.
This is a debate that occurs a lot and it is somethign we in PATeam pay attention to, however it is unlikelt that combat will be having a major overhaul for round 13
|
|
|
21 Nov 2004, 19:45
|
#11
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
I like what we got its simple
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
21 Nov 2004, 20:57
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 77
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
This is a very good combat system. It requires quite a bit of strategy, you can't simply build whatever ship targets everything. It also make it more necessary to share def; If i have a load of BS, and the top player has a load of BS too but not many marauders, I can still roid him unless he gets def. That's a good thing.
|
|
|
29 Nov 2004, 21:29
|
#13
|
Slave of Catwoman
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway, Hammerfest
Posts: 89
|
Re: Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
This is done by design. The stats design for this round is based the rock/paper/scissors principle. Cathaar are scissors to Terran's rock. I think this is a flaw we're going to have to live with this round. Next round will hopefully see better stats.
I suggest you avoid building Defenders and get Pulsars/Chimera/Cutters for def. You can probably get some ingal swapping with other races.
|
Where in the rock/paper/scissorts principle do you find Xan this round?
__________________
Proud to have been part of [WolfPack]
R 35 - R 46 [NewDawn]
R47 and beyond allianceless
|
|
|
29 Nov 2004, 21:51
|
#14
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
Zik > Xand/Terr until BS
Terr > Cath
Cath > Zik/Xand
Xand > Ter
|
|
|
30 Nov 2004, 10:18
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 95
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
Quote:
Zik > Xand/Terr until BS
Terr > Cath
Cath > Zik/Xand
Xand > Ter
|
well, two races have two main targets, that's pretty much an advantage I would say
|
|
|
30 Nov 2004, 10:37
|
#16
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadMan
Where in the rock/paper/scissorts principle do you find Xan this round?
|
Xan beats Terran. Sort of, anyway.
|
|
|
30 Nov 2004, 16:08
|
#17
|
fanboy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 492
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
[Decline]
__________________
Ascendancy, former [ 1UP] & Ministry.
FOUNDER OF THE OFFICIAL ASCENDANCY LADY GAGA FAN CLUB
ASCENDANCY DEMOLITION MAN
|
|
|
1 Dec 2004, 18:44
|
#18
|
Powering your life...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 400
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
I registered specifically to reply to this topic.
I hadn't played PA since rounds 4,5 and 6. I had to say the revised combat system caught me off guard at first. But now I can fully appreciate the tactical possibilities that have arisen due to the abolishment of "secondary and tertiary" firing systems and the introduction of a "rock,paper, scissors" dogma to the ship-stats.
However,
As one of the 31% of PA players who are Terran: I sympathise most wholeheartadly with those 14% of you who are cathaars, I feel that Terrans have an umatched and unequivocal advantge over their EMP counterparts than any other race combination in the game- your defenders cannot even begin to withstand an fully fledged Terran assault, even my excessive devotion to Harpies affords me some basic protection against Xans which the cathaars can't seem to match.
This imbalance is only *further" augumented by the Terran/Cathaar ratio. I am merely pointing out this anomoly, because I lack the foresight to see a reasonable solution without compromising the some of the more crucial elements of PA.
And finally, I am merely offering my opinion on such matters- I am aware that anything above could quite easily warrant a label bearing "WRONG"- so feel free to do so, I enjoy being corrected- it means I have learnt something!
Oh and please excues any "typo's" or spelling errors.
Thermodynamics
__________________
Reality is only a perception.
|
|
|
1 Dec 2004, 19:37
|
#19
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermodynamics
I registered specifically to reply to this topic.
|
Yay!
Quote:
I hadn't played PA since rounds 4,5 and 6. I had to say the revised combat system caught me off guard at first. But now I can fully appreciate the tactical possibilities that have arisen due to the abolishment of "secondary and tertiary" firing systems and the introduction of a "rock,paper, scissors" dogma to the ship-stats.
|
The rock/paper/scissors dogma is way older than limited targeting. Keep in mind that round 5 didn't have 'all' targeting either, iirc ships only had two targets then. In round 6 some ships had third target all.
Quote:
However,
As one of the 31% of PA players who are Terran: I sympathise most wholeheartadly with those 14% of you who are cathaars, I feel that Terrans have an umatched and unequivocal advantge over their EMP counterparts than any other race combination in the game- your defenders cannot even begin to withstand an fully fledged Terran assault, even my excessive devotion to Harpies affords me some basic protection against Xans which the cathaars can't seem to match.
|
Consider this. The average Cath is a lot bigger than the average Terran. The average Terran is helpless against a Xan FI/Sent attack. The average Zik has trouble defending against a Cath BW/CR attack. The average Xan can't stop a Zik with Clippers.
Quote:
This imbalance is only *further" augumented by the Terran/Cathaar ratio. I am merely pointing out this anomoly, because I lack the foresight to see a reasonable solution without compromising the some of the more crucial elements of PA.
|
Then how come the Cath are doing so much better than the Terran?
Quote:
And finally, I am merely offering my opinion on such matters- I am aware that anything above could quite easily warrant a label bearing "WRONG"- so feel free to do so, I enjoy being corrected- it means I have learnt something!
|
In my opinion the best way to balance shipstats is to decide which race defends which other race (rather than which race attacks which other race as was done this round).
For example, Pulsars/Arrows defend Terran DE/FR (respectively). If you make Terran DE/FR superior to and targeting the other races anti-DE/FR ships. You've got a rock (Xandathrii) to Terran's scissors.
The next step is to make sure that any other race with FR pods have ships that stop Arrows. All this needs to be adjusted per ETA and balanced damage-wise, but it's a good place to start.
Notice how this gives each race 2-3 'good' targets. It also means each race needs to pool reasonably singular def fleets for their alliance. It also means that without an alliance in a shitty gal you are mince meat, but what else is new?
|
|
|
1 Dec 2004, 20:01
|
#20
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
i believe the way forward, race wise, is to make it so that each race is best at defending against itself. that way, if one race is overpowered, there'll also be lots of defence against it available and this should tend to tone it down a little?
-mist
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
1 Dec 2004, 20:18
|
#21
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
That's not an entirely bad idea
|
|
|
1 Dec 2004, 20:41
|
#22
|
The Subtle/Profound
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 367
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
i believe the way forward, race wise, is to make it so that each race is best at defending against itself. that way, if one race is overpowered, there'll also be lots of defence against it available and this should tend to tone it down a little?
-mist
|
__________________
My apologies.
|
|
|
1 Dec 2004, 22:00
|
#23
|
Powering your life...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 400
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
[quote=Banned]Yay!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
The rock/paper/scissors dogma is way older than limited targeting. Keep in mind that round 5 didn't have 'all' targeting either, iirc ships only had two targets then. In round 6 some ships had third target all.
|
I feel I didn't fully convey my feelings on this one- I agree with you Banned- but what i meant to put across to you all was that is the first round I have played with only "primary" targetting.
[quote=Banned]Consider this. The average Cath is a lot bigger than the average Terran. The average Terran is helpless against a Xan FI/Sent attack. The average Zik has trouble defending against a Cath BW/CR attack. The average Xan can't stop a Zik with Clippers. [ /QUOTE]
Indeed- it is easy to see that the races/ships were modelled on rock/paper/scissors. I have found in perhaps my limited experience that my Pegasus's and Harpies do a better (though admittadly not great) job of defending me from a Xan than a "defender" does against my ships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
Then how come the Cath are doing so much better than the Terran?
|
Cathaars are a minority. At first glance their ship-stats aren't as impressive as others, an attacker doesn't care if his ships are subbed- he doesn't have to pay for new ones. Therefore, we can assume that anybody who chose to be a cathaar delibrated over it and gave it careful consideration. What kind of PA player would do this? Perhaps one who has coupled careful consideration with a drive to win? From being attacked by Xans and attacking Caths, i just feel there disadvantage is disproportionate to mine.
[quote=Banned]In my opinion the best way to balance shipstats is to decide which race defends which other race (rather than which race attacks which other race as was done this round). [ /QUOTE]
Are these two not related? If my good friend Mr Xan is attacked by a nasty Cath trying to EMP me, won't be Terran armour be put to good use? My strenghts and weaknesses correspond to the other 3 races, meaning i'm great at attacking (or defending against) one and weak vs. another.
[quote=Banned]For example, Pulsars/Arrows defend Terran DE/FR (respectively). If you make Terran DE/FR superior to and targeting the other races anti-DE/FR ships. You've got a rock (Xandathrii) to Terran's scissors. [ /QUOTE]
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
The next step is to make sure that any other race with FR pods have ships that stop Arrows. All this needs to be adjusted per ETA and balanced damage-wise, but it's a good place to start.
|
Then the same must go for the pods of every race. Pods being the crux of any attack- there need to be weaknesses to exploit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
Notice how this gives each race 2-3 'good' targets. It also means each race needs to pool reasonably singular def fleets for their alliance. It also means that without an alliance in a shitty gal you are mince meat, but what else is new?
|
Yes the whole basis of a good galaxy or alliance is a mutual need and desire for protection against your antagonists- out of this is born social interaction and hence one of the more enjoyable aspects of PA.
__________________
Reality is only a perception.
Last edited by Thermodynamics; 1 Dec 2004 at 22:25.
|
|
|
2 Dec 2004, 03:29
|
#24
|
The Subtle/Profound
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 367
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermodynamics
Cathaars are a minority. At first glance their ship-stats aren't as impressive as others, an attacker doesn't care if his ships are subbed- he doesn't have to pay for new ones. Therefore, we can assume that anybody who chose to be a cathaar delibrated over it and gave it careful consideration. What kind of PA player would do this? Perhaps one who has coupled careful consideration with a drive to win? From being attacked by Xans and attacking Caths, i just feel there disadvantage is disproportionate to mine.
|
Well. Xands are usually completely helpless against a Cath CR attack with Roaches. And Ziks are also often possible targets, as well as the average Cath (except here Scarabs can ruin your fun). So it's not like this "problem" (it's not really) is unique to Terran/Cath. I don't feel I'm at a terrible disadvantage to Terrans. But I must rely on the defense of others to stop their DE.
Besides, Cath has some awesomely efficient ships. This has always been the case - cath is the "nice target", the "nice attacker", but has always carried more freeze for the franc if you catch my meaning. I don't think Cath needs any upgrading, on average Caths' stats this round are very good.
__________________
My apologies.
|
|
|
2 Dec 2004, 05:54
|
#25
|
the Sacred Pervert
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,492
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
im cathaar too! usually when i get sexually harrassed by terran De fleets, i feel VERY MUCH violated that the only way to vent these frustrations is to randomly select Xan and Zik targets and virtually RAPE them and steal their roids... and it never fails - i feel a little bit better from it
btw.. except for defenders, the rest of the cathaar fleet i think, got the best ships this round
__________________
"....some might say, we will find a brighter day...."
-Oasis
Veneratio | Insomnia | F-Crew | Subh
|
|
|
2 Dec 2004, 13:25
|
#26
|
Take that
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 84
|
Re: Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
This is done by design. The stats design for this round is based the rock/paper/scissors principle. Cathaar are scissors to Terran's rock. I think this is a flaw we're going to have to live with this round. Next round will hopefully see better stats.
|
i dont think its a flaw i think its how its supposed to be, each Race has a primary target and a primary threat. But frequently you will find that the remaining race is one that can defend very efficently agaisnt your races primary threat.
For example, you are terran, your primary target is cat, your primary threat is xan. Where does zik come in? cutlass and buccaneers that beat any xan combination effective on ter (fi and co)
The ships are designed this way so the game cant be solo'ed, you need to be active and interactive! however i do think that PDS (defence turrets and whatnot for you newbies) should be reintroduced, and structure killers adapted to this threat.. as in pds is slow, slower than most ships (excluding roiders).
The risk with PDS always was that if you were gonna get absolutley owned then you couldnt run your PDS from the battle, which is what always kept it from being overpowered. Yay or Nay?
__________________
yeah ok dudes i dont need your memoirs...
|
|
|
4 Dec 2004, 10:26
|
#27
|
A right royal pain in ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 26
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
The Ziks have the same problem as Cat but at least their cutters fire before the drakes. What about the Ter ability to totally overpower a Cat with FR class ships (Gryphon, Centaur, Chimera, Cerberus), not a pretty sight. I would like to see the Gaurdians Init raised to 4 to at least give it a fighting chance against the Gryphon
|
|
|
4 Dec 2004, 23:43
|
#28
|
xXx
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 114
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
To me it did accure that there's alot of people asking about old stats or at least ships that target
more then just one target.
It would make the battles more interesting for Military Officers in alliances aswell. But I do think that if you ever add T1,T2,T3 for ships again you should fall back to multi attack and defence ticks aswell to make it fair on the defending side aswell. Give them time to calculate and or send defence more then just one tick.
I'm researching multiple things atm ship stats wise with some mates in VisioN. We're adding duall initiatives for a race and dual targets (t1, t2). The ships matrix seems to look much better and better balanced when having 5 races. I know thats 'bs' as it just depends on howmany people choose one race but for stats creators its easier to balance fleets that way.
We too use the same stats pa is using at this moment, and not the old stats with weaponspeed etc etc. And it seems rather easy to add one or two more targets for one ship. Also using a bit of a different EMP armour then PA has atm. As we reflect to an extra armour and not the same armour where's shot upon by 'normal' ships. EMP armour and NORMAL armour.
Anyways, drifting.
After looking at the forums reading loads of questions about this. I suggest you should also give it a try .. perhaps just run it one time in a beta version to see how it works out. The programming of it shouldnt be to hard with a source code you already have.
Good luck on your decision PA
__________________
---------------------------------------
Introducing AndroX -The Most Powerful Libido Booster for Men and Women
|
|
|
5 Dec 2004, 02:19
|
#29
|
the Sacred Pervert
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,492
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
I have endevoured in the extreme to gather my faculties in a somewhat futile attempt to ameliorate my more falllibe emotions. I have coined it a "futile attempt", due to the fact that after reading this quote I found a deeper understanding of why I am never "happy":
"Happiness is an imaginary condition- formerly attributed by the living to the dead; and now by adults to children and children to adults"
-Unknown
|
jesus christ man!! thats some depressing sh*T!!
__________________
"....some might say, we will find a brighter day...."
-Oasis
Veneratio | Insomnia | F-Crew | Subh
|
|
|
24 Jan 2005, 12:49
|
#30
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: [Discuss] Random targets.
strategy is good - declined
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03.
| |