New Strategy for PA?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Banned

It never was this. If you look at the winning planet in the last rounds, they always had huge value because they got to 8k roids first/early (with as many FCs as possible) and lost the least ships while attacking. They were never the #1 planet on both XP and value.

Oh I never implied that, merely that XP was what helped enhance their ranking over their rivals who were more or less persuing the same strategy.

[Kjeldoran]

This is the only post I was make regarding this thread and everything I post in here is my own opinion, are my own believes. Infact, I will start every sentence with "I BELIEVE" so that there can be absolutely no missunderstanding of what I write.

Pple who wish to even remotely draw things out of the context can kindly **** off.

Sorry for being so hostile ...

To the point now. What do I think of this round and the way PA is evolving into?

I BELIEVE that the current stats, XP formula and PA setup in general is destroying everything what an alliance stands for (Ingame alliances I mean). Defence is obsolete, serves no purpose and will only decrease the progression of the alliance you play for.

I BELIEVE that roids nor value have any serious meaning. Roids is needed to make ships. Ships define a large part of your value. Planets with high value mainly have a nice part of defensive ship.
Alliances that care about defence, care about value. They order their members to build some defence ships to serve the alliance. This means the members of that alliance will have decent to very good value and roids. This makes them the best targets for XP whores (not intented as an insult).
In the end, alliances that care about defence, and therefor about value, are being screwed by the current PA setup.

I BELIEVE that there is far less skill, activity or dedication involved in XP whoring. 3 fleeting and a good selection of targets and you're set for a top position. This means you put the accent on planet performance and no longer on alliance performance.

I BELIEVE that in the current setup, you can delete ingame alliances and you will not see the slightest change in planet ranks in the top100 (more or less). XP Whores don't defend, don't need defence and basicly don't need a tag because so far that's the only essential benefit of an ingame alliance.

All in all, I don't like the setup of this round at all. This does not mean I disrespect players or alliances that play this sort of strategy, it's their right and appearantly the best methode to win this current round.
That however does not mean that I like this sort of strategy or feel happy about it. But again, the alliances need to adapt to every little change the PA-team decides to make.

rgds Kj

[Banned]

Originally Posted by lokken

Oh I never implied that, merely that XP was what helped enhance their ranking over their rivals who were more or less persuing the same strategy.

I still think you're wrong. From round 12 up to and including round 15 the top planet was both #1 for value and score. In round 12 the difference between aif and TeK was their value. In round 14 elviz was several million value ahead of the next planet and only had approximately 4 million score from XP. In round 15 I'll grant your point, the top planet was one of the highest ranked on XP among the top10 that wasn't an XP player.

[lokken]

Well then the round 15 position is exactly what I believe we should aim to achieve.

[gzambo]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I BELIEVE that the current stats, XP formula and PA setup in general is destroying everything what an alliance stands for (Ingame alliances I mean). Defence is obsolete, serves no purpose and will only decrease the progression of the alliance you play for.

rgds Kj

tbh a week ago i would prob have agreed with you but even though i come form an alliance that belives strongly in defending each other i have to say that with xp now becoming more important in the game that we as a community must learn to adapt to the new scenario
while you can still play for roids / value i believe a balance between members in an alliance is whats best , some will play for xp while others play old skool and go for roids and value

while the xp hoes are ruling the roost by the end of the rd i feel it will balance out and an equal if not more number of planets in the top 100 will be value hoes

[clau777]

This round was all about roid swapping. no1 cares about ships and roids, they all want XP. I bet the old players of PA miss the powerblocks, the huge amount of ships fighting in wars against other alliances.Whats the point of alliances ingame then ?Just to attack together ? How does an alliance win by gaining the most XP ? Or should it proove its skills and bash the others?
PA is about war, ships killing each other, roidings,bashings not about formulaes. PA should go back to the original idea :P imho ofc lo mazz btw :P

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I BELIEVE that the current stats, XP formula and PA setup in general is destroying everything what an alliance stands for (Ingame alliances I mean). Defence is obsolete, serves no purpose and will only decrease the progression of the alliance you play for.

I think its changing rather than destroying, friendships can be formed and improved more like this for a reason I think Cura stated, you stay with your friends, you dont need to be in the #1 alliance to have a good planet. Ascendancy have a LOT in the t100 and DLR have a large percentage of its members there, despite being lower on numbers and probably activity than other allies. This would probably not have been possible last round, and I don't think its bad for the game.

I BELIEVE that roids nor value have any serious meaning. Roids is needed to make ships. Ships define a large part of your value. Planets with high value mainly have a nice part of defensive ship.
Alliances that care about defence, care about value. They order their members to build some defence ships to serve the alliance. This means the members of that alliance will have decent to very good value and roids. This makes them the best targets for XP whores (not intented as an insult).
In the end, alliances that care about defence, and therefor about value, are being screwed by the current PA setup.

In a normal round, value would catch up comfortably, however, this is slightly shorter and the stats don't help for 'value whores' so this round you are right, but on a larger scale I am not convinced.

I BELIEVE that there is far less skill, activity or dedication involved in XP whoring. 3 fleeting and a good selection of targets and you're set for a top position. This means you put the accent on planet performance and no longer on alliance performance.

What is skill? Building the right fleet, hitting the right people? And to a point, planet performance is beneficial to alliance performance, guaranteeing you a good score helps give the alliance a good score, and whilst doing it you are not being detrimental to your alliance in any way (unless you have the cheek to ask for defence)

I BELIEVE that in the current setup, you can delete ingame alliances and you will not see the slightest change in planet ranks in the top100 (more or less). XP Whores don't defend, don't need defence and basicly don't need a tag because so far that's the only essential benefit of an ingame alliance.

Not just for defence imo, but also to show your allegiance and who you are fighting for. And alliance ranks still matter.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Not just for defence imo, but also to show your allegiance and who you are fighting for. And alliance ranks still matter.

So where does your alligiance lie fishy? DLR or ND? DLR being the kind of alliance you're making a statement about, based on XP, no defence, attacking throughout the round and a great community of friends or ND who, like 1up, concentrated on an outdates style of play in terms of this round by holding onto value, trying to keep roids and balance attack with defence.

It poses a most interesting conundrum for you. You argue one side but then join the other. Or are your motives for leaving for ND entirely different?

[ComradeRob]

I can't actually see the problem with DLR joining ND. As DLR don't defend, it can't be shown that they have benefitted directly from being in the DLR tag.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I BELIEVE that there is far less skill, activity or dedication involved in XP whoring. 3 fleeting and a good selection of targets and you're set for a top position. This means you put the accent on planet performance and no longer on alliance performance.

In round 14 I played as a value player. Leaving aside the fact that I did some MO'ing for 1up, there was no skill involved in my playing that round. All of my attacks were scanned for me (though I mostly did my own JGPs once I had them) and defence was often organised for me without my knowledge or input. How was that any more skilful than what I do now?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I can't actually see the problem with DLR joining ND. As DLR don't defend, it can't be shown that they have benefitted directly from being in the DLR tag.

There isn't problem. It's within the rules, although some could argue that it's just a means to circumvent alliance limits. The only thing that bothers me is the hypocrisy of being told time after time that DLR and ND have nothing to do with each other and that DLR will not be merged into ND and then seeing DLR players end up in the ND tag.

As far benefitting directly form being a tag, this is true. But one could argue that them hitting particular alliance together as a team, irrespective of tag, is a very efficient means of working together and maximising potential roiding by minimising potential defence. Particularly when several hitting a particular alliance together have DLR have done consistently. Tags are only relevant for officially qualifying the score of a particular alliance they don't neccessarily denote who is working with who. After all, there were no tags in round 5 but all the people sat on the Fury IRC server were most definately working together and benefitting directly from it.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

In a normal round, value would catch up comfortably, however, this is slightly shorter and the stats don't help for 'value whores' so this round you are right, but on a larger scale I am not convinced.

My post was about this round. Not about last round and not about the next 504 rounds. My post is based on the assumption that this kind of setup would be the future for PA.

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Not just for defence imo, but also to show your allegiance and who you are fighting for. And alliance ranks still matter.

Ingame alliance's only actual benefit is ingame defence (and not being able to attack eachother and easily scan eachother). That is a hardcoded fact. Everything else, like showing allegiance and the patriotic feelings you create with fighting under a tag are all subjective. The ETA -1 is a simple fact where none of us have even the slightest influence on. All the other benefits a tag deliver was can influence and/or manipulate.

[Clogg]

I honestly think this round has started the demise of the alliances as we know it. Unless PAN will change the current game strategy drastic, I fear this cannot be changed.

By the looks of it, this will also be the round were you could be succesfull by XP whoring the full round. The whole arguments I heard earlier that XP whoring was to keep up with the value whores doesn't cut it anymore, since the ones going for value are passed left and right by the ones going for XP.

Since the aim for XP is best done by 3 fleeting on attack, I know that most alliances do not allow that, alliances will prolly evolve to attackgroups more then the current idea of alliances.

I sincerely hope PAN will drasticly change this, since I wish to see the alliance part remaining in this game.

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

My post was about this round. Not about last round and not about the next 504 rounds. My post is based on the assumption that this kind of setup would be the future for PA.

You as a few other on the boards seem to think that this xp-whoring trend is the future of PA. When will everyone realise it was a mistake, the stats were never designed to make xp-whoring the best way to gain score.

A simple tweak of the stats and next round will be back to the value whoring we are used to. I hardly think that the last few weeks are a major cause for concern to the future of PA but more of an opportunity for inactives and n00bs to have a taste of what its like at the top.

IMO the "allaince" is the fundamental reason i play this game, seeing my ally #1 is what i strive for. Even though there is a community within xp-whoring allys id much rather the allaince wars, covering vast waves of inc, retalling etc just to hold onto those precious r0x, for me this brings the communtiy closer together.

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by Clogg

I honestly think this round has started the demise of the alliances as we know it. Unless PAN will change the current game strategy drastic, I fear this cannot be changed.

By the looks of it, this will also be the round were you could be succesfull by XP whoring the full round. The whole arguments I heard earlier that XP whoring was to keep up with the value whores doesn't cut it anymore, since the ones going for value are passed left and right by the ones going for XP.

Since the aim for XP is best done by 3 fleeting on attack, I know that most alliances do not allow that, alliances will prolly evolve to attackgroups more then the current idea of alliances.

I sincerely hope PAN will drasticly change this, since I wish to see the alliance part remaining in this game.

DRASTIC changes? I think you will find that a tiny tweak in the stats would have made xp-whoring much more difficult. Nothing drastic needs to be done, just small tweaks to stats.

Why does everyone think the sky is falling down

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

DRASTIC changes? I think you will find that a tiny tweak in the stats would have made xp-whoring much more difficult. Nothing drastic needs to be done, just small tweaks to stats.

Why does everyone think the sky is falling down

It's not that the Sky is falling down, it's that views are completely polarised. Lot's of people like this way of playing (albeit not quite a s extreme in some cases) and lot's of people like it the way you outlined.

You're right, to get things back to the way they were is onl a slight shift in a couple of formulae but getting peoples attitudes back to wanting the game the way it was last round or the round before looks, to me, to be quite a significant task.

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

It's not that the Sky is falling down, it's that views are completely polarised. Lot's of people like this way of playing (albeit not quite a s extreme in some cases) and lot's of people like it the way you outlined.

You're right, to get things back to the way they were is onl a slight shift in a couple of formulae but getting peoples attitudes back to wanting the game the way it was last round or the round before looks, to me, to be quite a significant task.

Well talking to a fair few of my fellow whores i havn't found anyone that would find this style of play entertaining over more that one round. It does get boring when all you do is find targets, launch and thats it. I don't even bother JGPin anymore cause crashing my fleet or more importantly having it all stolen after getting roids is a bonus (i still cant kill my 1 fkn harpy tho)

If the stats went back to the way they always are, there is still room for soem people to xpwhore if they wanted, it would jsut be harder. The majority of allainces would welcome the change back to the old system, so thers no problems there.

Maybe a poll should be set up and we can see what style of PA people prefer, IMO the majority would rather the value whoring to the xp whoring

[XelNaga]

The achievements you make should always be relative to the effort and time you put into something.

I understand it's really nice for some people to be amongst the TOP 100 without putting much of an effort into the game, or waking up twice per night. But that's simply what PA was about, and is intended to be about.

I want to see those freaks and geeks rewarded for their uber activity. I want to see alliances rewarded for balancing defense with attack, multi-tasking with X fleets on every edge to get as much effectively covered, in both defense and attack, as possible. I want to see wars, where two alliances throw against each other all their fleets, while STILL caring about keeping roids and avoiding losses.

I want to see a correlation between activity/effort/skill (and by that I mean all facettes of skill, not only picking targets and fleet composition) and your rank, even if I might be one of the victims of bad luck, or just not good enough, and end up somewhere on bottom.

I simply can't stand seeing people that just log in twice per day for 10 minutes in the TOP 100, while those putting so much effort into the game to play it the old way, end up being left behind by miles. I'm not saying it's their fault, it's simply the stats' and the formulae's fault, but I will never find that an acceptable way too achieve a top position, as long as it requires so much less effort than the traditionnal way of playing. I'm not angry at them, I'm angry at the situation, they just did their best at reading the situation and adapting.

So once more, to make it clear: I don't care about how you get to the top, as long as it requires the same amount of time and effort. But currently, there is a huge discrepancy between both, when comparing value players to xp players.

[JonnyBGood]

Nobody likes effort. It's skill the game should focus on emphasising.




PS Not saying that it does now, just that it should.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Nobody likes effort. It's skill the game should focus on emphasising.




PS Not saying that it does now, just that it should.

I partly agree but effort should always play some resaonable part in achievement. It's not like every bright kids deserves a PhD without getting of his fat arse and reading a book.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I partly agree but effort should always play some resaonable part in achievement. It's not like every bright kids deserves a PhD without getting of his fat arse and reading a book.

It usually does. And it did this time as well. Just to a lesser extent.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Banned

They were never the #1 planet on both XP and value.

Hmm. Random thought - Should pateam seem unwilling to fix XP, then perhaps they should split the rankings so that score isnt the determining factor for a single winner.

You could have XP winners, and Value winners in planet, galaxy and alliance rankings
this would satisfy those who want to win value-wise, and those who want to win xp-wise simultaneously

granted this may mean longer end of round ceremonies , and more credits for pateam to give out but still...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Hmm. Random thought - Should pateam seem unwilling to fix XP, then perhaps they should split the rankings so that score isnt the determining factor for a single winner.

You could have XP winners, and Value winners in planet, galaxy and alliance rankings
this would satisfy those who want to win value-wise, and those who want to win xp-wise simultaneously

granted this may mean longer end of round ceremonies , and more credits for pateam to give out but still...

Why stop there? Why not have a winner who has the most metal roids, and one with the most tarantulas and one who did the most scans and one wh...

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Hmm. Random thought - Should pateam seem unwilling to fix XP, then perhaps they should split the rankings so that score isnt the determining factor for a single winner.

You could have XP winners, and Value winners in planet, galaxy and alliance rankings
this would satisfy those who want to win value-wise, and those who want to win xp-wise simultaneously

granted this may mean longer end of round ceremonies , and more credits for pateam to give out but still...

Why not have 2 differnet games to satisfy both people...
why not rankings for most roids gained, most roids lost...
Cause it would be lame, there is 1 winner, the one with the most score. In this case its an xp-whore most likely next round it will be back to a value whore

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

Why not have 2 differnet games to satisfy both people...
why not rankings for most roids gained, most roids lost...
Cause it would be lame, there is 1 winner, the one with the most score. In this case its an xp-whore most likely next round it will be back to a value whore

planetarion is already in effect two games merged into one (messily). Those who want to go for XP , and those who want to go for value.
The beauty of the splitting rankings is, that value people will not consider the xp whores 'winners' , and the xp whores wont consider the value people 'winners'.
Both end up happy for minimal fuss

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phil^

planetarion is already in effect two games merged into one (messily). Those who want to go for XP , and those who want to go for value.
The beauty of the splitting rankings is, that value people will not consider the xp whores 'winners' , and the xp whores wont consider the value people 'winners'.
Both end up happy for minimal fuss

I'd rather see any solution over this. Even the score given by xp radically scaled downwards 24 hours before the end of the round.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd rather see any solution over this. Even the score given by xp radically scaled downwards 24 hours before the end of the round.

Harsh :crymeariver:

merely tweaking the stats wont fix the underlying problem - that xp whores can grow essentially untouched, while value 'whores' can be beaten down at any time purely through sufficient numbers.

at best you can slow the rate an XP whore can grow at by taking out their fleet should they for some reason crash it. Their low value means fleetcatching or retals is usually impossible.

If changing the formula isnt an option then seperate the effect they have on the rest of the universe. Give them their own rankings and do whatever they want to win them without affecting the rankings for those who want to play conventionally

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Harsh :crymeariver:

merely tweaking the stats wont fix the underlying problem - that xp whores can grow essentially untouched, while value 'whores' can be beaten down at any time purely through sufficient numbers.

Fix the stats and they can't grow fast enough though.

[Phil^]

yes they can - all they need to do is land and get roids. By necessity the stats will have roiding combinations built into them - all xp whores need to do is use them on those with higher values then their own and get max xp from each attack.

the only way to eliminate this from the stats is to make every race able to completely defend vs any other, and that is a situation which should never ever come into being since it would make the game dull; no tactical thinking required

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phil^

yes they can - all they need to do is land and get roids.

All you need to do to win pa normally is never get roided or lose any ships. It's all rather easier said than done my friend.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

All you need to do to win pa normally is never get roided or lose any ships. It's all rather easier said than done my friend.

theres a little more to it then that, such as getting perfect targets every time and landing on every single one, getting the best possible start, etc etc etc

Yes its easier said then done, but changing the stats to make it harder to attack affects those playing for value as well as those playing for XP
the best way imo is to tone down how much score depends on XP ( mitigate how much xp whores can grow ), or find a way to destroy XP points ( give the ability to eliminate xp whores in the same way value players can be eliminated with enough fleets )

heres another wild suggestion : XP decreases every tick. the higher you have the faster it decreases.
Attacks should give more xp then is theoretically lost in the time used to attack - even at the highest 'grades' so that it is possible to grow - but become unable to land a couple of attacks and the net effect is that your score goes down.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Phil^

yes they can - all they need to do is land and get roids. By necessity the stats will have roiding combinations built into them - all xp whores need to do is use them on those with higher values then their own and get max xp from each attack.

the only way to eliminate this from the stats is to make every race able to completely defend vs any other, and that is a situation which should never ever come into being since it would make the game dull; no tactical thinking required

The problem this round is that the terran combinations are too expensive to be worth defending against; hence why XP whores use them.

make it better value to defend, you'll reduce their success rate and thus, reduce their xp gains. The real problem lies in minor nuances in the stats, rather than any XP based problem.

I shall be blunt. I am an XP whore. I am Xan. It is very difficult, as it should be. If Terrans found it as hard as i do, they wouldn't be XP whoring so much.

[Phil^]

the problem im highlighting isnt the ease at which xp is accumulated, its that once accumulated there is nothing anyone can do to remove it - whereas with traditional playing - a fleetcatch can wipe someone out if they do not get defence.
It is impossible to fight a war against an alliance of XP whores - all you can do is hope to outgrow them.

[furball]

Originally Posted by lokken

The problem this round is that the terran combinations are too expensive to be worth defending against; hence why XP whores use them.

make it better value to defend, you'll reduce their success rate and thus, reduce their xp gains. The real problem lies in minor nuances in the stats, rather than any XP based problem.

I shall be blunt. I am an XP whore. I am Xan. It is very difficult, as it should be. If Terrans found it as hard as i do, they wouldn't be XP whoring so much.

I sympathise. I am an XP whore through necessity. I am Cath using a FR fleet. It is getting more and more difficult to find targets that won't ruin my opportunities of getting any more XP this round - so I can't just land and lose it all to Pirates. If Terrans had this much difficulty, they wouldn't be making gains so easily and generating XP.

Originally Posted by Phil^

the problem im highlighting isnt the ease at which xp is accumulated, its that once accumulated there is nothing anyone can do to remove it - whereas with traditional playing - a fleetcatch can wipe someone out if they do not get defence.
It is impossible to fight a war against an alliance of XP whores - all you can do is hope to outgrow them.

So what? XP whores find it harder and harder as the round goes on, whereas successful value players can roid with 3 fleets/day, especially Ziks. This is the time for value players to make their charge.

We all know the concept of fleet-catches, and they are equally painful to XP whores as to value players. An XP whore cannot rebuild his fleet due to lack of roids, a value player can.

To fleet-catch a value player without covering for defence, you need 8+ fleets. To do it to an XP whore, you need 2-3 suitable fleets. So - if they're such a problem, why aren't people killing them off?

[jerome]

more caths need to realise fi+fr is a good way to attack.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by furball

So what? XP whores find it harder and harder as the round goes on, whereas successful value players can roid with 3 fleets/day, especially Ziks. This is the time for value players to make their charge.

personally, i dont buy the "it gets harder" argument.
all they need to do is keep their value , relative to their targets , at a steady level. they dont need to keep it pegged at say 200k all round
So long as they get max xp from attacks there is no difference between sending 20 ships vs a fleet value of 1000, to sending 200 ships vs a fleet value of 10000. The ratio remains the same.

Originally Posted by furball

We all know the concept of fleet-catches, and they are equally painful to XP whores as to value players. An XP whore cannot rebuild his fleet due to lack of roids, a value player can.

Except that the XP player doesnt have as much to rebuild - and their score is not affected to the same extent since XP cannot be destroyed - the value player's is.

Since in the end - score is all that currently matters, fleetcatching is not nearly as painful on xp whores as it is to traditional value players.

Originally Posted by furball

To fleet-catch a value player without covering for defence, you need 8+ fleets. To do it to an XP whore, you need 2-3 suitable fleets. So - if they're such a problem, why aren't people killing them off?

Not necessarily true. Ive been able to fleetcatch targets alone - and these are not xp whores.
Its simply a matter of catching the right people, with the right ships, at the right time, with the right initiatives

Hell ive not even got that large a value either - im somewhat mid-table
People arent killing xp whores off because their value is too low to attack them. They are out of reach from the people they are attacking, and those who will be disadvantaged in the rankings by them

[-=Zyth=-]

I will hold judgement as to my pa future untill I see what next round brings.

This round has been designed this way to hook new players. Its as simple as that.

The only way I can see this being the future of planetarion is if there is a significant increase of paying players next round and jolt step in and explain the harsh economic realities of their continued support of PA.


p.s. I would like it so that if I'm not allowed to hit a small value player, then they should sure as damn not be allowed to hit me.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

In round 14 I played as a value player. Leaving aside the fact that I did some MO'ing for 1up, there was no skill involved in my playing that round. All of my attacks were scanned for me (though I mostly did my own JGPs once I had them) and defence was often organised for me without my knowledge or input. How was that any more skilful than what I do now?

Successful value players are, the majority of the time, successful because of the following, and NOT because they're skillful:

Planet Naps on 'entering' alliance wars.
Alliance hopping.
DC/MO abuse.
Support planets. Or whatever you want to call friends outside your alliance/galaxy.

The current #1 of this round has shown far more tact in-game than those of the last three rounds. I'm absolutely certain of that.

XP has been, thus far, hugely influential to this round. Consider..

Please consider, that the last few 'value' rounds preceeding it have been largely dominated by the features of the game we least like.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Successful value players are, the majority of the time, successful because of the following, and NOT because they're skillful:

Planet Naps on 'entering' alliance wars.
Alliance hopping.
DC/MO abuse.
Support planets. Or whatever you want to call friends outside your alliance/galaxy.

The current #1 of this round has shown far more tact in-game than those of the last three rounds. I'm absolutely certain of that.

XP has been, thus far, hugely influential to this round. Consider..

Please consider, that the last few 'value' rounds preceeding it have been largely dominated by the features of the game we least like.

I'd be more than interested in seeing you prove any of those things about elviz.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Successful value players are, the majority of the time, successful because of the following, and NOT because they're skillful

Need I say any more, really?

Having said that, I don't think elviz was skillful in-game either and I think he'd probably agree.

And so, hopefully you see the point I'm making.. :\

[Travler]

Here are some crazy ideas for next round:

4 Fleet slots but 2 can only be used for defense.

What if XP was race dependant??
Certain races gain more xp per roid than others based on value differences.

Let bring back the r2 type ships stats with multiple targets.

How about Zik being able to steal all ships types with just 1 or 2 kinds ships but not being able to get xp for stealing roids. Then we could have value and xp planets. Then a Zik player could be lazy and grow just from being attacked and absorbing the ships.

Want to stop xp being all. No kill ships period. Emp, Stealers, and Pods only. That way value planets get bigger while xp planets get the score. Just two races. The attack race with Emp or the Defend race with stealers. both will get pods.

But so many people love to see battle reports of ships getting killed. How about no XP no armour very little cost to build ships and total destruction with every battle with little roid gain unless the targets ships were out.

I still think R2 was the most fun even though I was no where near the top 100 in score.

[The_Fish]

I'd say the DC abuse to a point, but not with abuse being the right word. Defence whore.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Need I say any more, really?

Having said that, I don't think elviz was skillful in-game either and I think he'd probably agree.

And so, hopefully you see the point I'm making.. :\

No, not at all. I've only picked out one instance there and your argument has fallen apart. elviz worked damned hard for his rank. He put his fleet in the right places at the the right times. If you think thats less skillfull than building a bunch of BS/CR and a load of distorters then we'll agree to differ but let's not make all encompassing statements that apply to the minority rather than the majority that you claim.

[ChipZ^]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Not necessarily true. Ive been able to fleetcatch targets alone - and these are not xp whores.
Its simply a matter of catching the right people, with the right ships, at the right time, with the right initiatives

Hell ive not even got that large a value either - im somewhat mid-table
People arent killing xp whores off because their value is too low to attack them. They are out of reach from the people they are attacking, and those who will be disadvantaged in the rankings by them

I think the point was to fleet catch a high ranked xp-whore is easy, to fleet catch a top ranked value player is much more difficult and uses alot of fleets + they are much more likely to get defence.

[bwtmc]

Well, normally that involves DC'ing for yourself or encouraging others to organise you an inflated % of the alliance's defence ships at any one time.

[furball]

mazz: the notion has been put forward repeatedly in the past, and never refuted, that 'celebs' such as cypher and elviz get a lot more defence from 1up becuase of the special attention paid to their incomings. I recall occasions where cypher specifically came online to DC elviz's incomings.

We've already seen it mentioned by bwtmc and Fish in this very thread.

[bwtmc]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

No, not at all. I've only picked out one instance there and your argument has fallen apart. elviz worked damned hard for his rank. He put his fleet in the right places at the the right times. If you think thats less skillfull than building a bunch of BS/CR and a load of distorters then we'll agree to differ but let's not make all encompassing statements that apply to the minority rather than the majority that you claim.

From what I remember, we only had to play two thirds of a round because competition for the planet/galaxy/alliance rankings had fallen apart. Every single planet in the top ten became idle midround because they simply didn't have anything to attack on accounting for the bash limit and Planetary/Alliance naps. For my 17 million value, for example, there were three targets I could attack at the end of the round. In-game we didn't do anything awe-inspiring or interesting.

With reference to elviz, I don't think I'm guilty of any of the above either, I also don't think that matters. I have no idea what you're talking about as regards attacking in Round 14. It was never about skill or being clever with fleets.

Last round pretty clearly illustrates what I was saying.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by furball

mazz: the notion has been put forward repeatedly in the past, and never refuted, that 'celebs' such as cypher and elviz get a lot more defence from 1up becuase of the special attention paid to their incomings. I recall occasions where cypher specifically came online to DC elviz's incomings.

We've already seen it mentioned by bwtmc and Fish in this very thread.

In round 14 I did once get a phone call in the middle of the night to defend elviz. However, he repaid the defence by responding to a similar call later on, to defend a 1up member in my galaxy. I don't think he necessarily got more out than he put in, which is the implication of your post.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

With reference to elviz, I don't think I'm guilty of any of the above either, I also don't think that matters. I have no idea what you're talking about as regards attacking in Round 14. It was never about skill or being clever with fleets.

elviz and cypher covered astronomical amounts of incoming in gal and I guess the roids just popped up at thier planets of thier own accord.

Say what you like, elviz won that round by being a good PA player. And I'm sure you're in a far better position to tell me about the utilisation of 1ups def than I, as HC, will ever be.

[jerome]

i'm not sure how you can win and not be good at planetarion itself, really to be quite honest though.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by furball

mazz: the notion has been put forward repeatedly in the past, and never refuted, that 'celebs' such as cypher and elviz get a lot more defence from 1up becuase of the special attention paid to their incomings. I recall occasions where cypher specifically came online to DC elviz's incomings.

Cypher comes online at shit time to Mo a lot more than his own incoming. you think Sid or I are the kind of people that will willfully let people come on and pull that shit? If you thnk that thn you don't know how 1up works at all.

Yes, cypher and elviz inevitably get more incoming than most 1up planets, but then they're inevitably larger than most 1up planets round after round and they are usually amongst the highest defenders in 1up in terms of fleets sent, bearing in mind points are not given for in gal def.

Originally Posted by furball

We've already seen it mentioned by bwtmc and Fish in this very thread.

I'll point you to the post of mine above. I'm sure they are in a far better position than I to tell everyone about 1up and it's fleet utilisation.