Cov Ops
Is it possible for a scanner to hold onto their amps? :)
for some reason cov ops seem a bit powerful this round,not complaining or anything, it just seems they seem a little over powered, what are others views on this? |
Re: Cov Ops
Sure it's possible. You'll never have max amps, as you'll have to build security centres, but since dist whores have to as well, that balances out.
|
Re: Cov Ops
yeh but i mean with cov opin you can take out 7 amps in 2 ticks easily:P
just saying that, that CAN happen:P |
Re: Cov Ops
Ah yeah, but seriously, who goes around with dedicated cov-op teams just to **** up enemy scanners? That's pretty sad if it does happen, in my opinion. I bet it's Jenova!
|
Re: Cov Ops
It's true, but only if your alertness is low. You can pretty much make yourself immune if you build sec centres and put some population into it.
If you're a Dictatorship, it's even easier. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
why do you even post on boards?? i personally think its a cool idea pity did not think of it |
Re: Cov Ops
Oh the irony. It hurts. It hurts so bad.
|
Re: Cov Ops
I heard about one guy, right, and he'd just got to jumpgate probes, right, and he was the first one in the universe with them. Then a bunch of covert oppers reduced all 10 of his amps to rubble so his probes were useless. UNBELIEVABLE! People today, eh?!
I hate those nasty Jenovans!!!! :mad: |
Re: Cov Ops
Tomkat get a clue
first person to uni with JPG firstly would not have 10 amps, secondly the cov ops are not that cleaver and thirdly get another clue pls |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Tomkat dont play dumb...
and Marv whos being sarcastic |
Re: Cov Ops
16:2 Ascendancy Covop BP gal.
Clearly another attempt from ascendancy to feck with the game - sadly ill bet we wont see any changes to covoping, even though feudalism was mamed after tick start the most likely outcome will be 0 changes untill next round. Well thought of asc, a shame you focus on how you can exploit the game... Did you remember to tag them in alliance too or just playing support? |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
Having alliance cov-op'ers is just the same. If they can seek out and find their competitors for the top spot and hinder them by taking out their scanners, how is that them ruining it? It's purely another offensive approach players / alliances can take, as opposed to doing it with fleets and SK ships. |
Re: Cov Ops
Assuming Black Out is 25 agents minimum (correct me if wrong)
[edit]OK so its 15 agents and I made a MAJOR miscalc by forgetting to double the sec centres.[/edit] Cov Opper with Dictator = 100 + 25% = 125 base stealth. new_stealth = (old stealth - 5 - int(No_of_agents*0.5) ) new_stealth = (125 - 5 - int( 15 * 0.5)) = 113 random(20) + new_stealth - target_alertness must be higher than 1 for the operation to succeed. 20 + 113 - alertness = 1 (1 or lower is fail, 20 is highest possible random) alertness = 132 So you need 132 Alertness to 100% stop an Black Out. Everybody has a base Alertness of 70. 132 / 70 * 100% = 189% So you need a 89% bonus to alert. Dictatorship gives 20% Security Guards give up to 50% Security Centers give up to 60% (@ 30% Centres) Options: Dictatorship + 49% Guards + 10% Centers = 20% + 50% + 20% = 89% Dictatorship + 9% Guards + 30% Centers = 20% + 9% + 60% = 89% 49% Guards + 20% Centers = 49% + 40% = 89% 29% Guards + 30% Centers = 29% + 60% = 89% Total Immunity requires 96% bonus (36% Guards + 30% Centers or 50% Guards + 23% Centers) |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
But you're substantially correct. It is easy to be immune, but you gotta sacrifice a bit. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
He's miscalced in several places. You need 138 alert to be immune to all cov ops, 133 to be immune to blackout. For total immunity you need 50% population on security and 24% security centers, or 38% population on security and 30% security centers. For partial immunity it's 50% population on security and 20% security centers, or 30% security centers and 30% population on security. For dictatorship, remove 10% security centers or 20% population, for democracy add 5% security centers or 10% population.
This means you need to assign a substantial part of both your population and constructions to protection against covert operations, especially when you're a scanner or distwhore. Keeping in mind that 14 full-time cov oppers can prevent an entire alliance from getting constructions (until they figure out they need immunity), and that a single buddypack of cov oppers can keep four alliances from getting scanners with more than 10 amps (or keep them from researching scans at all), I'd say covert operations are rather overpowered this round. That said, I personally see nothing wrong with an alliance using cov ops in order to gain an edge over the opposition, much like Ascendancy is doing right now, as per the scanner argument used earlier in this thread. My suggestion (stolen from dec) for next round would be to reduce the stealth boost for planets that choose dictatorship to 15%, and that stealth regeneration should not be influenced by it. This should reduce cov op strength by about 55%, making it strong, but not overpowered. Meanwhile, I would recommend people to dedicate a little bit more attention to the changes that are being made in between rounds, because the numbers were all there. You could've done the same as us, if only you would've put aside your narrow mindedness for just a moment, and paid attention, rather than play in the only way you seem to be able to: exactly the same way you've been taught to all those rounds ago. Instead you choose to cry and point fingers at the people who do recognise the best strategy, just like last time. Oh. Yes, I'm in 16:2, and no, we're not in the Ascendancy tag. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
But I have to admire that you guys have found another rather huge loophole to abuse and make the game less fun for the people you mess up for, I did warn the pa team about the strength of cov-ops this round however it wasn't possible to get anything done with it. I did a few calculations about the cov-ops myself, but didnt see the goverment loophole so the cov-ops was infact even worse than I thought. But again, its fully legal, just nobody else than ur merry band that thought about it. I do question though the creation of planets built for solely destroy others fun in the round, but I guess since everybody can do it its fully allowed yet sadly despicable. Good luck with your utterly senseless round though! Im sure someone will thank you for your efforts :) |
Re: Cov Ops
Oh wait, I thought I played a war game! You know, where you attack and steal and destroy and other nasty stuff. Maybe I was wrong and need another game, Sim Planet never was my style :(
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Achillies , Tomkat stop the propaganda :P
The cov gal in question definetly has a nasty evil plan which involves taking out all scanners in game and then res hacking their way to a gal win , reminiscent of last round. I know this because dec was silly enough to message one of our scanners ingame his plans: xxxxxxxx (16:x:x) No Subject Specified Thu, 28 Jun 20:21 sry but i cant let a scanner get sec centers.... .dec xxxxxxxx (16:x:x) No Subject Specified Thu, 28 Jun 21:01 well every scanner on dict will be a cov opper as soon as the scan researches are done... bank hacking is a nice source of income for a scanner... at the same time all cov oppers will be scanners later on so its really just a question of what you start with (am through with cov ops researching unit scans atm....) as for the roid thingy - if you get 80k each from cov ops why should you go for 20k each with 200 roids ^^ we bank hacked some time to fill up our gal fund and as soon as its empty we will do that again.... in fact regarding the cov oppers income it wouldve been a nice strategy to have 5 devoted bankhackers in a gal, gather those 25M res asap, donate it to one guy and that one has a huge lead in value ^^ if he hides it in the production that can even be stacked as long as cov op gets you more money than roids.... would b fun and if it doesnt get changed i might try it next round but im rather positive that cov ops gets nerfed after the round anyways gl in your round .dec WAY TO PLAY THE GAME :P |
Re: Cov Ops
Even in the little games of infants, people win by usage of a) muscles or b) brain.
I always find it fascinating how ppl complain about others, while they're practically nothing but jealous that somebody found a legal gap in the game to make best use of, which they were not aware of. But isnt that one of the things that makes a deserved winner? Tell me one good reason, why it isnt. Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
it's funny how they can hoard resources worth millions in value by the end of the round just with bank hacking, and still be added to the tag because of low score (most likely under t10 average because of no roids/ships) giving said tag a good boost on the last day, and nobody can do ANYTHING about it
:D pld |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
As I made clear in my initial post, I was aware of the "gap" and I pointed it out to the pa team. I decided not to use it because it goes against the spirit of fairplay. You may call me gullible or soft hearted. Being jealous on some people who are using loopholes in the rules to win a game? Get a grip. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
I'm angry at this, very angry....why didn't I think of it first? and second, why didn't I get recriuted?
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
I dont think i need to write anything else, i am quite sure people can guess what my next lines would have been. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Lets see an alliance consisting for a large part of "former" Ascendancy members scanning and covopping based on Ascendancy interests - Thats a support alliance in my book. doesnt matter if you attack or defend them its stil a clear breach of the pa rules.
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
Live with it. I've learned! |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Did noone bother to think that just maybe Decendancy aren't following 'Ascendancy goals' but instead are a bunch of people who maybe think its fun to cov-op ppl?
I know i sure as hell wish i thought about it, i would be doing it too. sounds like a laugh to me :D This is a game, if its within the rules and its fun... do it? that is sorta the point of a game isn't it? |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
I would certainly recommend it, it seems it's the best way to contribute to your alliance this round!
|
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
getting covopped:
6 amps + 6 jammers blown up in one go by only 60 agents. 12 constructions * 9 hours building time = 108 ticks in planetarion wasted. You lot actualy think this way of covert opping is going to keep planetarion alive? Any new player that comes to planetarion and gets hammered like that will instandly quit the game reducing the player base even more then it should be. And just saying "we found a loophole" and explore it because according to you its within the rules is like thinking with your wrong head. You might have some fun but in the end tweaks will be made for next rounds to stop it from ever happening again. But those players wont return. Making your next rounds less and less fun. So far there's alot of things happening - Even Appoco, whom I spoke to about this subject said they were currently looking into this. As you can see that game admins also don't want to lose possible new planetarion addicts/players. However, if you're ignorance to the playerbase 'dropping and dropping' each round then why on earth are you still playing planetarion? Ask appoco or mh's to close your planet right away because you wont do the game and its community any good anyways - no matter what alliance you are in. Just my two penny. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
I'll explain briefly. At the end of last round ascendancy was around about 70 members. We had some recruitment between rounds of people who wanted to play the ascendancy way, no officers, no rules, no chumps. As such I set up descendancy, after a few brief words with a couple of others. Descendancy is not a covert-op alliance, I'm in it and I haven't researched cov-ops or scans or anything yet. I believe a few others are in similar positions. As always with the ascendancy way of doing things there are no limitations beyond ingame restrictions on what you can and cannot do.
Considering the apparent widespread dislike for ascendancy and the ascendancy way of playing I decided it'd be nice for descendancy and ascendancy to co-operate for the round. We have no intention of being a support alliance for anyone and to my knowledge no def fleets have gone from one tag to the other nor are ascendancy planets in any way favoured. I'm aware this is a contentious issue so pre-round I talked it through briefly with fiery and, considering the fact issues may arise later we were able to agree that if we somehow did cross the "line" in an as yet unforeseen way we'd be informed by the multihunters what was wrong. On a personal note I feel this highlights some deficiencies in the way alliance limits work. We have some players this round who I severely doubt would be playing if they weren't able to play in either descendancy or ascendancy. Do we really want to push those people away in future? Similarly to kargool I'd like to big myself up for requesting construction times be moved down this round as has rather clearly be shown to be a good idea. Incidentally there are no assigned goals or anything. Hell there wouldn't be assigned goals if there was only one tag. Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
Tbh what Ascendancy have done is not the problem, its that the admins have allowed this to be used/abused, If the round restarted today with same stats etc i would of gone down the same route, seems fun...
but with AndroX point about playerbase into consideration i really think that is the PA Admins fault..... Its up to the admin to make this game better, all the players can do is suggest, if the admin dont wanna do anything then abuse will happen every round and every round more player will leave. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
Quote:
Jesus, how often do I have to say it before it gets through to you (general you): build ****ing SCs! Don't give us a chance to destroy you. I've made scan planets lose all their amps, after which they happily resumed building them, without learning anything from the previous time. Sorry, but I cba to feel pity for idiots. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
When people disagree with each others, sometimes a compromise is better than being adamant in your own conviction. Its called negotiating. |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
|
Re: Cov Ops
But JBG, changes come in small steps. Start by making the ally limit 80, then 100, then 150, then, when (or if) people see you're right, propose their removal. You should meet a lot less resistance that way.
|
Re: Cov Ops
I personally do not see a huge problem with all this. I might be responsible for a part as i suggested quite an increase in the effectiveness of the covert op government. I think its a good thing, as covert ops in the past were quite useless and weak. The increase of the stealth and alert bonus from Dictatorship would make covert ops a more viable way of playing compared to the normal combat (and i'm in favour of having more ways to play the game than just the combat thing), while at the same time making it a choice that can somewhat compete with the advantages of the other governments (more income/lower ship cost). This may be the first round where covert ops is actually a nice option, and despite me not using them and being annoyed by their use on my planet, i think that it is good.
But this doesn't really change the fact that covert ops are quite impossible to balance in PA (in their current form). I think the 0 roid cov op planets prove that it is a problem that there are no limits to who you can hit with covert ops, and that the damage is always maxed out when you get through. It might be better if in the future covert op damage would be decided on relative value/score between involved planets combined with the security/stealth/agents ratings. I.e. max damage up to double and half your own value/score, and after that the damage decreases (somewhat of a dynamic bash limit). Next to that security settings, although not preventing the hit, might decrease the damage. As currently its insane that tiny planets are able to hit the biggest planets without any worry whatsoever. Perhaps trained agents (like ships) that need to be recruited and can be killed aswell might balance this out better, but that would require alot of recoding :-). |
Re: Cov Ops
Quote:
Anyways as I said I genuinely wouldn't enjoy having to argue for this. It's far easier to let history prove me right or wrong. A lot of people seem to want to play a different game to me anyways so I really don't see the point in arguing with them. We have a fundamentally different paradigmatic approach. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018