[Declined] Attacking smaller planets

[Pinkerton]

Would it be possible to reduce the % roids capped when attacking smaller planets.. I see bigger planets hitting planets less than half thier size all the time..

I think it might help balance to reduce the 25% cap to 20, 15, 10% depending on how much smaller the planet is than the attacker. Currently smaller planets are worth less XP

This would reduce the incentive of big planets crushing little planets because they are easy targets.. They can still do it , but it won't be worth as much.

It could level off at a certain value 600-700k after which it would be 25 % across the board. It could also be based on score.


Just a suggestion (take a deep breath and count to 10 before responding)

[Cochese]

Seems reasonable enough.

Also perhaps increase salvage based upon the size difference of the planet attacking you...ie, someone who attacks a little planet right at their bash limit should not only get a decreased cap rate, but the person being attacked should get a larger percentage of salvage than if they were attacked by someone more close to their own size.

Proportional salvage, I guess you could say.

[MAdnRisKy]

think about that one cochese.....

in multiple fleet attacks is it done cumulatively? or biggest ? or smallest?

and why might this be a bad idea depending on what you select?

[Cochese]

Why should there be any difference if the big guy attacks with a little guy(s)?

You're still getting bashed, regarless of how many small attackers are tagging along. If they want roids, they need to drop the basher, and attack by themselves. Escorting (as that's what it boils down to) shouldn't be beneficial in situations where the biggest attacker is barely able to attack a tiny planet.

The game mechanics are still too rigid. It's an all-or-nothing system, and it obviously isn't as effective as it could be. There is a simple solution to all this, but it's far too good to waste here.

[Eol]

Originally Posted by Cochese

The game mechanics are still too rigid. It's an all-or-nothing system, and it obviously isn't as effective as it could be. There is a simple solution to all this, but it's far too good to waste here.

Where would you be prepared to waste it?

[MAdnRisKy]

nothing of what you said there I'd disagree with. But you weren't addressing what i was thinking....

in that model, who dictates the ammount of salvage recieved, as if it's cumulative... how on earth do you fleet catch we've already seen how unbelieveably shit 45% is. what about if you go by the biggest attackers value... then you get all the small guys for free, or if you go by a small guy, adding in one tiny guy totally wrecks salvage for the planet being caught.

I'd don't dislike the idea... but in the state you're presenting here there are some holes. Though I'm sure you have a master plan , adn you'll let us peons disect it in due course

[BasiltheCat]

I like it. If I am 40% of my attackers size then he should get only 40% of the 25% cap rate. So if Im 500 then he would cap 50 instead of 125. So he could still attack but the benefits would be reduced. Also how about INCREASING the salvage smaller planets get by basing it on their attackers size.

[Kal]

wouldn;t this affetc the ability to bash say the #1 planet - its not much point if he get smost of it back in salvage

[Kal]

no comments?

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Kal

wouldn;t this affetc the ability to bash say the #1 planet - its not much point if he get smost of it back in salvage

There are two suggestions being discussed:
1. Roid cap depending on the value ratio
2. Salvage depending on the value ratio

1. roid cap depending on the value ratio
This would mean that big planets when getting roided lose the maximum cap (I asume the value ratio will be capped at 1: If you are bigger than the target you get the maximum roidcap, when you are smaller a relative proportion of it.
A cap is required (otherwise you would theoreticly be able to cap more than 100%/tick from a much larget planet).
This maximum roid cap should be slightly raised i.m.o. (to 30%?) otherwise attacking will be insufficiently rewarding.

2. Salvage depending on the value ratio
It will be hard to keep track of which fleet does the damage during combat. For this reason I think it would be best to make salvage depend on the largest attacker's fleet.
A possible implementation is: salvage=losses*(1-yourvalue/largestattackersvalue)

A cap at the ratio is needed, for instance when the largest attacker is < (yourvalue/0.9) the salvage is capped at a minimum of 10%.
The outcome:
ratio salvageratio
0.1 0.9
0.2 0.8
0.3 0.7
0.4 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.6 0.4
0.7 0.3
0.8 0.2
0.9(+) 0.1

In essence, when attacking at the lower end of your attack range salvage is slightly raised. People that lose a lot after being hit by multiple waves can get high salvage. Similar for small defenders against big planets.

This would affect a fleetcatch on a big planet (he gets less salvage if the attackers are smaller, more salvage if his attackers are bigger than him).

[Gerbie]

An alternative formula:
defendervalue/(3*attackervalue+defendervalue)
Outcomes:
0.1 0.76
0.2 0.62
0.3 0.52
0.4 0.45
0.5 0.40
0.6 0.35
0.7 0.32
0.8 0.29
0.9 0.27
1 0.25
2 0.14
4 0.07

[Kal]

Declining both becuase the current system of XP and a 40% bash limit does a better job than the old systems ever did