Change in Attacking Rules

Forum / General / Change in Attacking Rules - Pages: 1 2
AuthorThread
Pestilence
Advanced Poster
(Moderator)
Location: Australia



Date: 14/7/2009 at 3:01

This is a thread designed for the purpose of allowing player feedback on changes to the attack rules.

Objective:
I want players to not have a "safety zone" of deleting all ships and being near-unattackable.

Please feel free to add your view

Crazy
Novice



Date: 14/7/2009 at 11:11

My suggestion: make it so that as your score increases, so does your base MR, just like moons do at the moment. That would stop the leading players from losing all their moons on purpose and dropping down to almost nothing.

Of course they could still have no ships at all so there should also be a system where if the defending empire has no ships it is a win for the attacker, rather than a 'no result'. That should prevent people from leaving their empires unprotected.

Pestilence
Advanced Poster
(Moderator)
Location: Australia



Date: 14/7/2009 at 12:48

Hmm,
So far im thinking along the lines of a "retaliation strike" like feature. Where if you attack someone and then remove all your fleet then that emperor gets to return one attack no matter what your military rating is.

Crazy
Novice



Date: 14/7/2009 at 13:36

That could work, but again the retaliating player should still get a win if the defending player has no ships. At the moment a battle like that would just end evenly.

zion0destroy
Novice
Location: fifth ring of hell



Date: 14/7/2009 at 15:32

why not have it so that if they kill their fleet instead of attacking it turns into a raid. sort of how an army goes through and takes usable resources and weapons from an enemy they have just beaten, if they kill their fleets instead of score points from the battle you get a percentage of the targets pooled resources. maybe something like 5% or so. that way they can keep their score but it could hinder their ability to rebuild their fleets hence making it less of an advantage to destroy the fleets.

Crazy
Novice



Date: 14/7/2009 at 17:38

Pesti have you got any plans for sectors next round? Obviously with subscriptions gone no one will be able to make them anymore, maybe give people the ability to make sectors once they reach a certain score or something?

Pestilence
Advanced Poster
(Moderator)
Location: Australia



Date: 14/7/2009 at 23:24

Crazy,
about the attacking players getting an "even" result. Ill have to have a look into this. Can you explain the scenario as to how players are doing this? If you dont have ships at home you should lose imo.

zion0destroy,
Its a good idea, however it would be hard to code to distinguish if that player destroyed their fleet. Eg if the rules were to say if player has 0 ships then engage in raid mode=y. But then players would start building 1 ship to leave at home to avoid raid mode. Or if you take it as a percentage of the fleet that attacked you. ie If players ship % =< 25% of the fleet that originally attacked. What happens in the case that the orgininal attacker got attacked and smashed by someone else's fleet before the retalliation strike could occur.

Crazy,
Umm to be honest i hadnt even thought about sectors. I guess i can turn them back on, i cant remember if there was any bugs/problems with them. Hopefully not :-)

Note: im updating news again

ganterp
Novice
Location: UK

Date: 15/7/2009 at 2:11

You really created you own problem when you introduced Guardians and Pillagers, as they were the only ships to win moons when attacking.

Episode 3 had a perfect win get planets set up if you win you get planets if you lose you don’t if there’s no ships to protect the planets they get stolen. Simple as can be.

And if sectors were re introduced then the more than 1 empire can attack at a time rule would have to go as you’d then play as a sector attacking the weakest member and hoping your sector teammates will help defend.

The election process should have a limited time before a decision is made if after 48 hours a decision is not made it should go to the highest vote if it is a tie the votes will be discounted and players will have 24 hours to reach a decision.

The exchange into gas just makes people get more Guardians and Pillagers I doubt they’ll use the exchange rate at the beginning to build low-end weapons when other sufficient weapons for ships exist.

Personally id abolish Guardians and Pillagers and have a certain Gas weapon on Sale to apply to each ship that could gain moons for the empire this would solve the have no ships and ill survive problem.

Ganterp

Crazy
Novice



Date: 15/7/2009 at 9:50

Well at the moment if the player being attacked has no ships at home the battle ends in a draw, and no one gets any points. So if you were to introduce the retaliation attack then the tactic would still work if the player just deleted their entire fleet. I agree with you, this should end in a loss if they don't have any ships.

As for sectors, the only bug I remember was the lack of a 'Council Update' warning, which really isn't the end of the world =p

ganterp
Novice
Location: UK

Date: 15/7/2009 at 11:21

sectors are pretty good as it makes every single empire findable the sleeping stars will be found and people will have to be more tacticius.

im just waiting until the next version.

Pestilence
Advanced Poster
(Moderator)
Location: Australia



Date: 16/7/2009 at 6:31

Crazy,
Are you sure they have 0 ships at home? or do they have some pillagers/guardians?

Crazy
Novice



Date: 16/7/2009 at 10:12

Not sure. Either way they should still lose imo.

Venom
Advanced Poster
(Moderator)
Location: Bishops stortford, England



Date: 16/7/2009 at 20:46

My thoughts:

- Bring back sectors. They make the game more interesting my opinion. Much more fun ^_^ Heh

- Remove Guardians and Pillagers. They are useless I feel, they are ships that have been made to give them a purpose. Like Ganterp said, go back to the old Round III ways, you win the battle, you win the moons. You could work out how many moons were taken by the damage done, for example, if you destroy 25% of the enemies fleet to win, you get 10% of the moons, or something like that. Upto a maximum of taking 40% of their moons in an attack, and moons are split between attacking players depending on how much of the total damage do in an attack.

For example:

Attacker 1 and Attacker 2 attack Defender 1. They destroy 100% of defender 1's fleet. Defender 1 has 100 moons, so he losses 40 (40%). Attacker 1 and Attacker 2 did 10,000 damage in total, with Attacker 1 doing 7,500 (75%) damage and Attacker 2 doing 2,500 (25%) damage. Attacker 1 get 30 moons, while attacker 2 gets 10 moons. This will stop people abusing multiple attacks to gain moons for other accounts/friends when pillagers are removed.

- Perhaps attacks should not be based on 60% of a player MR, but of his "Level" which could be a combination of score, MR, Tech levels, things that go up as your empire develops. This would mean that even if you are an experienced player, ranked number 1 in score, and with a high tech, but no fleet, you would still have a high "Level" and would have to keep a fleet up to defend your score. When your score drops, so does your level. But your tech will keep it up, so you will still have to defend yourself.

- I would like it to be made so that a player can make money from battles, if they win of course. Like we have the debris after battle, which is turned into resources for the winner. Not sure how this would work at the moment, but it would give people an incentive to destroy enemies with good ratios and be more tactical as they could make a profit from an attack, and get some moons too!

blooddiamon1
Basic Poster

Date: 16/7/2009 at 22:29

hey hey phyco here lol,

ill post the main reasons y people including me deleted fleets

moons - if you have moons, you need a guardian to protect them, which then means people can attack you with titans destroying ure guardian and take 10% of your score for that one ship. serves you right for not having a fleet to defend properly, but then you just dont get moons and it stops it. what was mentioned above about from previous rounds is getting rid of guardians and pillagers and if you win a battle you get some moons, if u loose you dont, that would go in faviour or people not deleting fleets.

a disadvantage for higher plays - if your at the no1 spot with say 1 billion score, one single battle at the moment would mean you loose 100m score whether the battle was 10 ships or 100k ships, thats not fair on all the top players. i mentioned it before and it may have been used in previous rounds but i forgot lol but say you attack somone and win and you got 1million damage points, that 1 million shud be added to the winners score and the defender should loose 1mill from there score. if they have 0 score then just the winner gets the points ovii and getting rid of this 10% from the opponents score shud be sc***ped, which would also go in faviour of people leaving there fleets up


for example ill use my self from last round, i had 600m score, no matter what size a battle is if i lost i would loose 60m score which means if the other person destroyed one ship they would gain 60m score and the damage from that 1 ship they destroyed. which for one ship being destroyed they shud never gain 60m score, they should only gain points from ships that have been destroyed, i would have been happy to leave a fleet up if all i lost was the damage done in battles

just my opinions on y i deleted my fleets after battles last round

Crazy
Novice



Date: 16/7/2009 at 22:36

nah I think the 10% should be kept, but with the new changes to stop people deleting. It'll be more fun imo.

Pages: 1 2
Login to the Forum

To reply to this thread please login to the Atorian Forum:

If you do not have a forum account click here.

Forum Username:
Password:

By logging into the Atorian Community Forum you are agreeing to abide by the Forum Rules and agreeing to the Privacy Policy. To view the Privacy Policy and forum rules click here.