It is currently Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:47 am


The forum is READ ONLY. Please direct any future discussions to our Facebook page


 Page 2 of 8 [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:28 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
Valience wrote:
Wrong again, Tarnus, and now you've shown that you have not read my previous posts either.

Quote:
I have an alternative then. Bounties based on ship size.

The game should take the total net value of all of a player's ships, and then compare it to another player's score and/or total net worth. If the other player's score is below a certain fraction (this exact value will take some experimenting to get perfectly balanced, but it's possible) of the player's ship value, then they will be bounty.

This way, no one with a huge ship and no planets can attack small (score wise) players, but it doesn't stop big players from becoming safe by just buying a small ship and selling the big ones, since it's determined ship to score, not ship to ship, which would be unfair, or score to score, as it is now.


That sounds like a suggestion to me. At least, it was meant to be a suggestion. In fact, it sounds like a very good suggestion. This way, people could still go all ship and no planets if they wanted, but they wouldn't be able to attack anyone below them, or even at their own level.

So, basically, I did already suggest something. Then PJ suggested something much worse. I told him so, and now you're saying instead of pointing out the flaws in the proposed solution, I should be suggesting something myself, even though I already have.



Sorry Val, gut reflex ;) We are open to any and all suggestions and solutions. I may have read it, but have been focused on a lot of stuff other than just the game. To be clear, I don't want a band aid, I want a solution.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:29 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
As far as all the other suggestions on here, I have been attacking them because they weren't suggested by an admin, so I don't see them as being as close to being put into effect. I see problems with all of them, but I don't feel like picking through all of them. If any of them seems to be moving toward being put into effect, you can bet I'll be opposing it, unless it's changed.

Also, all of those suggestions are better than what PJ posted, in my opinion.

And Tarnus, you've forgiven. I can understand you forgetting about my suggestion, but I don't like when you accuse me of not trying to help without looking first to see if I have or not.

So... what do you think of my suggestion?



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:34 pm 
Gamer
Gamer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 9:16 am
Posts: 143
Location: Denmark
Valience wrote:

That means, If I want a 500T ship, I need 5-10 QD in planetary techs. I use planets at level 255 for production. That costs about 60 billion credits.

So, I hope you can follow a simple math problem.

60B * x = 5QD

where x is the number of planets I need.

5,000,000 B / 60B = 500,000/6 = 83333 planets.

If I want a 500T ship, I need 83,333 planets at tech 255. Does that make sense to you?

Those planets would produce around 72 quadrillion credits a day. I would be making 72 quadrillion a day, and I could use 500T of that...

Side note: 72QD/500T = 1/144 That means that I can use one one hudred forty fourth of my daily production on a ship. This ratio will hold true for all examples of consolidating once a day, and with 255 techs on planets.

Can you understand? Do you comprehend? Talking to you shouldn't have to be like talking to a five year old...


Come on Val... Who is the stubborn here.
First planets at level 255 don't last long if a enemy player got a ship worth just 10-20 tn. and you are only calculating the planets' defense into your equation to generate 500Tn your gotta have serval houndred bn colos and there by a lot of stuff on the planets, sectordefense settings etc.

Big, 5 +-2 years old....



_________________
Regards,
Big

- "To be no. 12345 is okay, but whining is Big" ;)

http://www.aatraders.com/index.php?player_id=71
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:42 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Big, I know you know that much over 255 techs on planets are really inefficient.

If you upgrade your planets to the point that they can defend themselves, they can't produce credits well (produce at just over 1/3 the rate). That's why know one does. Again, I'm sure you know this, and have no idea why you're bringing up such ludicrous arguments. People rely on SG SD, not individual planet defenses.

Quote:
and you are only calculating the planets' defense into your equation to generate 500Tn your gotta have serval houndred bn colos and there by a lot of stuff on the planets, sectordefense settings etc.


Read PJ's post. That stuff isn't taken into account, as he said. I don't know if SD is taken into account. If it is, that's better, but still not good enough, because my SG shouldn't have to be worth 10 times my ship. That's way too much. For a 100T ship, I'd need 1 QD in SD. I've never even seen that much money in one game, though I certainly have broken 100T in ship value.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:03 pm 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Posts: 48
Big wrote:
Case: player A got 100 points, player B 10 points
B defeats 6 planets of player A (each planet worth 1 point). This brings player A down to 94 points and player B up to 16 points. with your suggestion player A should be able to take 8 planets back.... That makes (in my point of view) it worse now the bounty-range is put aside and the gap between the players bigger. The player with more points should be able to defend them self against player outside the bounty range. no need to give them tools to be brutal.


Its not meant to be brutal, its meant to be a deterrent. Time and effort go into playing the game, and if you want to play with the big players thats fine. But the smaller guy now just gets away with it, not right or fair. But being able to take an additional 33% of what you lost can prevent a player from becoming a hired gun. As you a hired gun you stand to loose more than what you gain. Most players aren't going to worry about a sector or 2 being taken, it happens and is part of the game. But a player taking all they can or can get away with taking, is player that really is a problem and one that needs to be dealt with by a player or team. To make the game fair for all involved, if attacked you should be able to attack back. Players playing within their range allows for a more equal game. The Top players I've seen in most games are those that build a healthy empire. Builders are the ones who will ultimately do the best. Builders typically enjoy doing that, and will leave others alone for the most part. But why should some one decide to get rich off their hard work and get away with it?

I will use this as an example. We attacked Jason as a challenge, one that he made a little to tempting :). It was primarily to see if we could and what it would take to do it. Lets say by some miracle I was able to pull that off on my own and was still bounty to him. Should he not be able to take back what I took and give me a little spanking for do it? I think he should and I would deserve it. We make choices as to who we attack, and like anything there should be consequences to those choices. A player playing with in his own range is less likely to get hit back as hard. They will be having little skirmishes here and there as it is and a far more capable of defending themselves in that range.

I just feel that the biggest problem is hired guns. There is a need for them, and eliminating that need will resolve a lot of issues. It is also a solution that adds a new level play and doesn't detract from current game play.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:15 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Quote:
But the smaller guy now just gets away with it, not right or fair.


First, that's not usually the case. If it is, it's the bigger players fault. They are bigger, so they should have invested more into SD. Second, if the game is "biased" for the smaller guy, it encourages instability in the rankings, which I think makes the game more fun.

Third, there is an obvious expliot for this: Big players build planets in RS with not much cash, but enough to entice a small nooby to attack the undefended planet. These little players come along, don't know what they're doing, take the planet, and then that allows the bigger player to come and destroy them.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:00 pm 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Posts: 48
Valience wrote:
Quote:
But the smaller guy now just gets away with it, not right or fair.


First, that's not usually the case. If it is, it's the bigger players fault. They are bigger, so they should have invested more into SD. Second, if the game is "biased" for the smaller guy, it encourages instability in the rankings, which I think makes the game more fun.

Third, there is an obvious expliot for this: Big players build planets in RS with not much cash, but enough to entice a small nooby to attack the undefended planet. These little players come along, don't know what they're doing, take the planet, and then that allows the bigger player to come and destroy them.


A player may not always have the resources need to defend everything so heavily. As for the exploit you mentioned, there will always be a way around things with out a major redesign of the game. I do think that more needs to be done to protect a noob. An experienced will progress much faster in the game, add more noob protection to game. I am all for that, we all want a community of AAT that will last a long time. If we didn't care about that none of would be here making suggestions or arguing for their point of view. To keep the community going certain things need to be done to protect the new guys and to teach the new guys. At the end of the day all things come down to choices. Choices can lead to positive and negative things happening in your life. It should be that way in the game for all aspects of the game play. There is no one solution that takes care of every problem. I see the new rules proposed as a punishment to players doing well, but it does resolve certain issues. I like the new bounty system, take to many and you loose things and you open yourself up to attack.

My proposed system doesn't call for a lot of changes to the rules and a bunch of math you will need to figure things out. It provides more options and choices to players. It also makes it harder that hired gun scenario to keep happening. But the choice is there with consequences of choosing to be someones hired gun. It eliminates the need for a player to drop score in order to attack an opponent. it still protects that lower ranked player until they do something aggressive towards you. The other thing that could be done is increase the value(score wise) of ship tech after 290 or some number like that. That way it will also increase the number of players bounty to someone with a big ship.

My suggestion seems like the less intrusive way of making changes to the current status of the game. Thats what I am truly advocating for here. Something that solves the problem, adds to game, but doesn't punish players either for success.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:24 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
MadMArdigan666 wrote:
My proposed system doesn't call for a lot of changes to the rules and a bunch of math you will need to figure things out. It provides more options and choices to players. It also makes it harder that hired gun scenario to keep happening. But the choice is there with consequences of choosing to be someones hired gun. It eliminates the need for a player to drop score in order to attack an opponent. it still protects that lower ranked player until they do something aggressive towards you. The other thing that could be done is increase the value(score wise) of ship tech after 290 or some number like that. That way it will also increase the number of players bounty to someone with a big ship.

My suggestion seems like the less intrusive way of making changes to the current status of the game. Thats what I am truly advocating for here. Something that solves the problem, adds to game, but doesn't punish players either for success.


Lots of good points MM. I can agree with you that if we put too many odd checks and balances in the game it will cause more problems than solutions, while I might not like your plan a 100% it bears some merit that really if your gonna play with the big boys stuff you either defend it or be prepared to lose it. While I can agree if they take specific planets, I don't necessarily agree that you should be able to go after em so strongly. Maybe if its a bounty player that attacked you your ships efficiency will not work as well due to the bounty even though your able to attack them, you may not be able to go much past your own planets they took with the ship you have.

Just some more random thoughts.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:42 pm 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Posts: 48
I don't like my plan 100% either. I am trying to offer a starting point for another option. The big problem i have with it is the additional 33% that a player could attack. I do see that it makes it harder for a hired gun that way, they could loose more than they gain. That takes the benefit out of accepting large amounts of cash in order to attack someone. In those additional planets that could be taken, the hired gun has the possibility of loosing their ship. And thats the deterrent factor for that idea. It is harsh, but if there is another less intrusive idea out there to prevent or deter a player from assuming the role of hired gun I am all for it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:45 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
I'll add in a modifiaction to my own...

Right now, I think anyone below 70% of a player's score is bounty. I also believe that it is reasonable to expect that 35% of a player's score be ship.

So... instead of basing it off score, how about ship? If twice your ship's value is greater than or equal to the other guy's total net worth, you can't attack him. The coefficient of 2 could be tweaked as is necessary. This would match up with the current system (ignoring logarithmic shift from the score system) almost perfectly for players with "average" size ships (ships equal to 35% of their total worth). On the other hand, if a player was all ship, they could only attack players twice their worth and higher, which means they wouldn't be able to molest anyone with the same score, who wouldn't be able to defend themselves from such a ship.

This leaves the player free to upgrade their ship past 35% of their net worth, but they won't be able to attack as many people. Inversely, a player could spend less money on their ship, and they could attack smaller players, since their ship isn't as big.

I think that would be a very interesting way to do things. It would be a lot of fun, too. It wouldn't be restictive at all, it would keep things fair, and it would stop players from just going all ship and attacking little guys.

Here is an idea for a variation: Instead of going by, say, the worth of a player's biggest ship, it could go by the worth of the ship that the player is in. If they're in a really small ship, a top player could get down and play with the little guys. This may seem unfair, but in a small ship, how is it? The problem, of course, is that this would allow them to nova bomb little guys in a small ship, and that would have to be changed.

I think this would be really cool, because if a player felt threatened by someone below their bounty level, they could just put themselves on a level playing field with that player by hopping in a smaller ship, and then they could go after them.

I really think this should satisfy pretty much all sides. Please comment.

Oh, and by the way, what's the problem with people acting as hired guns/mercenaries? I think that's a legitimate part of the game. It's just unfair when a player gets a ship bigger than what it should be, which wouldn't be a problem with the system I'm proposing.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:13 pm 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Posts: 48
Having a low score and a big ship is a team strategy. A good team dynamic is as follows, 1 or 2 builders, 1 or 2 medium range players (builders and attackers) and 1 or 2 low guys that are the teams attackers. Those low guy guys are the deterrent factor from an attack by a team or player. All team members should be contributers to their team and by having these roles and doing their assigned jobs. What you are suggesting Val prevents that sort of team dynamic from occurring. A team built like that shouldn't be punished for success and doing well. A team like that is needed under current and recent rules of game play, eliminating the need for that sort of team dynamic is the only way to really resolve the issue. An environment where team cooperation is there and is more focused on the overall achievement of every player on the team is the best way to go.

Removing the need for these style of tactics is really the ultimate goal. Giving players more to think about and really deciding the value of potential targets. You will need to ask your self this, is that 200b(b=Billion) and 8b colos on that planet really worth it? If the answer is no, then you will need to build more and attack more in your range. The bigger you get the more you have. Not every team or player would have the ability to do what we did to Jason. But not every team or player has the ability to defend like that either. What we did should leave Jason the ability to respond and hit us back, fair is fair. This now gets into how to best build, and I am not a good or bad builder so i may be a little off in my evaluation of this building strategy. Having large planets, doesn't generate cash as quickly. Having a large number of smaller planets that get upgraded constantly over time is the most efficient way of building up a lair. We hit Jason's best lair(example only) but he kept his best ship elsewhere, he may not be able to use that in order to counter the attack that occurred. With reduced and a lack of a really useful ship, what can he do? Not much until he gets the time, turns and money to build again. But if he still had use of his main attack ship he could reclaim what was lost, plus retaliate for the attack. That would be useful especially if the other team or player became bounty again. If you are going to deal it, you should willing to receive it.

The other thing you mentioned about molesting another player with a big ship, shouldn't happen either. For me, I am not going to worry about some small guy taking a planet or two from me or a sector even. I am going to worry about the player that could be a threat. Someone close to me in score, maybe 5 to 10ranks below me. This activity that is occurring right now in the game is happening amongst the top players in the current game. By this point of the game the good, medium and new players are exactly where they should be. Also, at this point of the game tactics become very important. Removing the need for them, rather than restricting even more what a player can do will benefit all involved.

I came up with the plan I suggested based on this. New or unskilled players need protection, skilled players and players doing better don't need the same level of protection. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, should that not apply to game as well.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:50 pm 
AA Trader
AA Trader

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 2:03 pm
Posts: 231
Being one of the guys that has gotten picked at by lower level players, I understand the desire to get a freebie period to attack back.
However hearing it from someone else makes me see this is a bad idea.

Here is why. A smaller player is protected by a bounty for a reason. They are either growing players, or newbies you have passed up on your way up.
If they stumble into a lair of yours that you did not protect well enough, then shame on you for not protecting it better.
This person is trying to become an attacker or whatever. If they truly are a threat, and continue to attack, 2 things will happen.
One your alignment and their alignment will go to oposites. This will allow you to attack them without consequense.
Two, they will gain enough points to get close to your score, and then you get to attack them.

I hate being the big guy being picked on by lower level players, but it is even worse to be the guy in the bottom being hammered by a larger player you have no chance against. I think I was podded 5 or 6 times last game because of the good/evil thing. Not a thing I could do about it. If I were a noobie, I would have quit way before the 3 rd podding.

So while it sucks, it is better for what Tarnus and PJ are doing, getting more people to play, then make the big players happy.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:21 pm 
Developer
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:07 pm
Posts: 2930
PhirePhly wrote:
True attackers.........those that are as devoted to attacking as I am engrained as a builder.....example such as Shesshomaru.......I can see where this massive change to the game structure would eliminate that sort of player. They would be forced to build an empire to support their attack ship instead of just stealing it from others.


Actually it doesn't keep any player from stealing planets from other players. The attacker is still very much alive and well with this type of change. They will be attacking planets to take them to add to their infrastructure so they can have more and more powerful ships. You have to remember that AAT is closer to an RTS (Real Time Strategy) game and most RTS games use some form of infrastructure system to fund the ability to build attackers and defenders. This adds onto our current system by tying ship size to planetary tech size. It would be like most RTS games where you might need a certain number of resource mines and energy planets to support base defenses and attack vessels. This is really how the game SHOULD work but the simple way was used by just using credits to determine the ships that could be used. Things like sector defenses have limitations similar to this as well.

Players who primarily attack will be doing both building and attacking to increase their empires infrastructure. Remember I have some in-depth experience with RTS games and know what can and can't work.



_________________
PJ's Annoyingly Useless Blog
ADOdb Lite
Template Lite
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:28 pm 
AA Trader
AA Trader

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 2:03 pm
Posts: 231
Not a bad analogy, however you have to continue that line of thinking then.
Perhapes it is better to limit what the person can buy in the first place, but you should not limit what they can attack with, or upgrade to.

The reason I say that is, in most rts, the closest you can come to for this game would be the army is limited in size by resources.
If I am attacked, and lose most of my buildings, I do not lose the current army. Nor is my current attacking ability limited.

Next, if I lose my main buildings, but still have a production building, I can sell other less important buildings to get more soldiers.
Same sort of thing here.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Main Game Bounty Change Part Tres
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:29 pm 
Developer
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:07 pm
Posts: 2930
Ash wrote:
So if I am at attacker/builder mode towards the end of the game where I can't steal enough to go up, and someone hits my major guard planets, I cannot take back those sectors, because my main ship is now too big compared to my planet tech levels.
Lets say I have the score in money/ colonists/planet goods to support the money level necessary to own and upgrade this ship, but all my planets are now low tech level, or most of my planets have been wiped out.
I do not see how that player could fight back. I would not even be able to take back my abandoned planets, or indy's.


As I said in my response to Phire you would still be able to fight back and reclaim but as with any game like this if you lose infrastructure you have to rebuild it to get back to where you were. It would be similar to someone attacking your planets with a nova bomb and wiping out tech, colonists and commodities but failing to take the planet. Your planet cannot produce like it did before so you have to gain funds from other producing planets to rebuild that planet so it can produce like it used to before the attack. The same thing for a large powerful ship. If it loses planetary support it can't function as well because the support is limited.

One of the things that was suggested by Max was to make the effectiveness of the ship go DOWN instead of just stopping the ships ability to attack. That would be more in line with the loss of planets. You would then be able to ALWAYS attack but the fewer planets you have to support the ship the less effective your attacks would be. With this addition if you started losing planets that affected your ship you could still use the ship to take back those lost planets instead of it becoming totally ineffective.



_________________
PJ's Annoyingly Useless Blog
ADOdb Lite
Template Lite
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 8 [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron