1 Topic by LiGhTGuNs (edited by LiGhTGuNs 02-Jan-2016 08:45:58)

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Topic: Imperial Boring

Playing Super Nova round 18 was my first experience with the new morale systems. I know it was put in place to limit farming and to stimulate war between equals, making the game more balanced.

After experiencing one complete round I think the original goals were not reached. Actually I think the new systems stimulates farming more than ever and in the proces the game became Imperial boring.. First some stats

Size ranking SN round 18 (new morale system):

Rank      Family      Planets      Networth      Score
1    flipmode 2015 (1946) [80,35]    533    11052155    33736   
2    LiGhTgUnS | Shame on you! (1924) [27,77]    525    3449076    32706   
3    FUBAR (1914) [7,54]    453    12744179    33843   
4    (1949) [28,7]    444    10306033    32086   
5    The One and Only (1957) [3,48]    432    18097034    36803   
6    The King (1931) [61,7]    431    7160742    32214   
7    \o/ Xmas \o/ (1922) [36,9]    410    11212632    25000   
8    ikillu (1953) [15,22]    404    21903087    33832   
9    funny (1937) [46,41]    381    20698710    37499   
10    Imperial Christmas (1950) [69,3]    376    22584659    37251

Size ranking SN round 15 (old morale system):

Rank      Family      Planets      Networth      Score
1    Give me Wings! - LiGhTgUnS (1550) [43,34]    1009    3730441    35483   
2    on the move (1515) [47,40]    666    15499772    36244   
3    (1546) [63,15]    509    5212497    24173   
4    NOPE! (1510) [71,50]    447    21484185    31397   
5    The House of Black and White (1503) [69,33]    412    23947766    31812   
6    Enders Game (1529) [59,9]    399    4014891    17900   
7    P-own~age at it's best! (1543) [57,29]    358    3689830    18701   
8    DIAGEO (1483) [58,20]    329    2962708    16218   
9    funky (1488) [36,1]    308    10103050    19148   
10    Peyote Pilots (1530) [8,22]    260    359749    5962

Size ranking SN round 11 (old morale system):

Rank     Empire     Race     Planets     Networth
1     Holland     Qezians     694     2251895 (= me lightguns smile )
2     Titan     Qezians     635     7420424
3     GVR     Qezians     609     3837903
4     Platypus     Qezians     547     5171399
5     SHAFT     Qezians     471     8866124
6     Happy     Qezians     362     2232938
7     Aleph     Qezians     315     1814403
8     ClaUs     Qezians     304     12046682
9     Winner     Qezians     291     3425646
10     ZzzZZ     Qezians     280     14027346

Considering the distribution of planet size between first and 10th place with the new morale system is much smaller than with the old system, I conclude in general there is less conflict.

My experience during round 18 of SN was that when reaching 400+ planets the morale drain on high NW players is so high It is not worth to jump fleet on high NW players. At some point I had 5 mill NW, 450 planets and attacking the highest ranked player (10 mill NW) would cost me 6% morale. Considering I would need a fleet jump the morale drain would be even bigger.  I am not going to save 5 days to jump fleet and fight the highest ranked player to get less than 15 planets in 1 tick. That is not efficient. Instead I deciced to farm someone at 60% of my NW. At 25% morale drain per attack in those 5 days I farmed him (1912, Federation) for around 50 planets. This made it my most boring round ever. Most of the round I just waited for morale to kick in.

To actually stimulate war among equals just loose size completely from the morale equation. It makes no sence to give players with a big size a morale penalty. These are the players that actualy are able to challange that those high NW players. Also, Bring back the 50% morale cut when declaring war.

If you want to stimulate grabs on high ranked players it should be worth your while.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 382
  • Tag points: 302

Re: Imperial Boring

Last round i did barely any attacks, i just explored and stayed small costing too much morale to people who wanted to clear my systems. Which is not really that much of an issue, i still had my ground but instead of having fighters stationed i just didnt build them and kept enough savings on the market to jump them when needed. Yet i still finished in the top 10 for size. Lol

Dont Kick a man when he is down, unless you are sure you can get away.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 134
  • Tag points: 1

Re: Imperial Boring

i agree with lightguns here.. i'm not looking forward to the new round at all..
start is fun to see who had the best strategy.. after 4 days it's fun to see who has the most balls.. after about 2 weeks everybody in top 20 is napped and infra whores.
between week 3 and 8 the top 20 picks on the bottom 55 as much as they can and from week 6 to 8 EOR savings till the last day.

Next round please

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

Do you have the complete top-bottom ranks?

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

Below a more complete overview of size and nw rankings for round 11, 15 and 18 (last 3 rounds I played)

Round 18 Size:

Rank      Family      Planets      Networth      Score
1    flipmode 2015 (1946) [80,35]    533    11052155    33736   
2    LiGhTgUnS | Shame on you! (1924) [27,77]    525    3449076    32706   
3    FUBAR (1914) [7,54]    453    12744179    33843   
4    (1949) [28,7]    444    10306033    32086   
5    The One and Only (1957) [3,48]    432    18097034    36803   
6    The King (1931) [61,7]    431    7160742    32214   
7    \o/ Xmas \o/ (1922) [36,9]    410    11212632    25000   
8    ikillu (1953) [15,22]    404    21903087    33832   
9    funny (1937) [46,41]    381    20698710    37499   
10    Imperial Christmas (1950) [69,3]    376    22584659    37251   
11    Grow Universe Grow (1948) [39,51]    372    14943784    33526   
12    ~~ World Changer ~~ (1965) [9,23]    370    14499162    33947   
13    Cabala (1935) [17,39]    368    10094722    33290   
14    Mindless drones (1915) [47,8]    358    12753900    33292   
15    Never Reaching Potential (1947) [56,24]    315    7901674    32538   
16    ten ye new year end. o holi da (1920) [29,55]    313    5008196    23342   
17    (1951) [42,33]    298    34219562    32822   
18    ~Semper Fi: With Honor~ (1928) [10,63]    277    5457569    24637   
19    The Minute Men (1926) [72,34]    262    3604887    20219   
20    wabash cannonball (1932) [46,78]    255    1912272    4767   
21    Best Banker E v a h !!!! (1898) [40,59]    251    5117311    27368   
22    HappyJedi (1944) [65,41]    236    4240977    12165   
23    Federation (1912) [7,31]    229    1745582    23486   
24    (1919) [27,37]    212    3680142    21302   
25    Let it go! (1963) [3,78]    212    3326336    17680   
26    Waldo (1891) [57,42]    198    6183357    20275   
27    DO NOT ENTER (1893) [18,49]    189    1008764    6420   
28    Title here (1942) [79,14]    188    2222168    4272   
29    M4204 (1895) [76,22]    184    2772817    15771   
30    (1956) [48,22]    166    3309750    21009   
31    Stoned Tiger (1933) [58,70]    145    2731991    17724   
32    abyss (1897) [78,65]    138    898531    12085   
33    Lone Dog (1894) [56,79]    131    834360    4646   
34    Supreme Master of Modesty (1945) [77,76]    125    493774    2402   
35    PS4 (1954) [19,76]    124    4071744    15222   
36    (1916) [8,74]    98    699285    12435   
37    (1918) [71,11]    83    10798257    14130   
38    (1958) [40,26]    82    249805    697   
39    A New Beginning (1905) [61,59]    75    261568    832   
40    Jeb bush doesn't like amish (1929) [50,60]    72    216733    418   
41    Leave me alone!!! (1923) [33,27]    69    2230018    19041   
42    Whoop whoop (1940) [59,50]    61    321529    1294   
43    Nuts ! (1925) [10,43]    50    1156756    1430   
44    Twiners Glory! (1941) [77,55]    29    2398427    8822   
45    (1902) [38,39]    14    26453    418   
46    azdonga (1930) [29,68]    9    21747    208   
47    (1964) [55,6]    1    1250

Round 18 NW:

Rank      Family      Planets      Networth      Score
1    (1951) [42,33]    298    34219562    32822   
2    Imperial Christmas (1950) [69,3]    376    22584659    37251   
3    ikillu (1953) [15,22]    404    21903087    33832   
4    funny (1937) [46,41]    381    20698710    37499   
5    The One and Only (1957) [3,48]    432    18097034    36803   
6    Grow Universe Grow (1948) [39,51]    372    14943784    33526   
7    ~~ World Changer ~~ (1965) [9,23]    370    14499162    33947   
8    Mindless drones (1915) [47,8]    358    12753900    33292   
9    FUBAR (1914) [7,54]    453    12744179    33843   
10    \o/ Xmas \o/ (1922) [36,9]    410    11212632    25000   
11    flipmode 2015 (1946) [80,35]    533    11052155    33736   
12    (1918) [71,11]    83    10798257    14130   
13    (1949) [28,7]    444    10306033    32086   
14    Cabala (1935) [17,39]    368    10094722    33290   
15    Never Reaching Potential (1947) [56,24]    315    7901674    32538   
16    The King (1931) [61,7]    431    7160742    32214   
17    Waldo (1891) [57,42]    198    6183357    20275   
18    ~Semper Fi: With Honor~ (1928) [10,63]    277    5457569    24637   
19    Best Banker E v a h !!!! (1898) [40,59]    251    5117311    27368   
20    ten ye new year end. o holi da (1920) [29,55]    313    5008196    23342   
21    HappyJedi (1944) [65,41]    236    4240977    12165   
22    PS4 (1954) [19,76]    124    4071744    15222   
23    (1919) [27,37]    212    3680142    21302   
24    The Minute Men (1926) [72,34]    262    3604887    20219   
25    LiGhTgUnS | Shame on you! (1924) [27,77]    525    3449076    32706   
26    Let it go! (1963) [3,78]    212    3326336    17680   
27    (1956) [48,22]    166    3309750    21009   
28    M4204 (1895) [76,22]    184    2772817    15771   
29    Stoned Tiger (1933) [58,70]    145    2731991    17724   
30    Twiners Glory! (1941) [77,55]    29    2398427    8822   
31    Leave me alone!!! (1923) [33,27]    69    2230018    19041   
32    Title here (1942) [79,14]    188    2222168    4272   
33    wabash cannonball (1932) [46,78]    255    1912272    4767   
34    Federation (1912) [7,31]    229    1745582    23486   
35    Nuts ! (1925) [10,43]    50    1156756    1430   
36    DO NOT ENTER (1893) [18,49]    189    1008764    6420   
37    abyss (1897) [78,65]    138    898531    12085   
38    Lone Dog (1894) [56,79]    131    834360    4646   
39    (1916) [8,74]    98    699285    12435   
40    Supreme Master of Modesty (1945) [77,76]    125    493774    2402   
41    Whoop whoop (1940) [59,50]    61    321529    1294   
42    A New Beginning (1905) [61,59]    75    261568    832   
43    (1958) [40,26]    82    249805    697   
44    Jeb bush doesn't like amish (1929) [50,60]    72    216733    418   
45    (1902) [38,39]    14    26453    418   
46    azdonga (1930) [29,68]    9    21747    208   
47    (1964) [55,6]    1    1250

Round 15 Size:

Rank      Family      Planets      Networth      Score
1    Give me Wings! - LiGhTgUnS (1550) [43,34]    1009    3730441    35483   
2    on the move (1515) [47,40]    666    15499772    36244   
3    (1546) [63,15]    509    5212497    24173   
4    NOPE! (1510) [71,50]    447    21484185    31397   
5    The House of Black and White (1503) [69,33]    412    23947766    31812   
6    Enders Game (1529) [59,9]    399    4014891    17900   
7    P-own~age at it's best! (1543) [57,29]    358    3689830    18701   
8    DIAGEO (1483) [58,20]    329    2962708    16218   
9    funky (1488) [36,1]    308    10103050    19148   
10    Peyote Pilots (1530) [8,22]    260    359749    5962   
11    (1501) [42,52]    254    29112182    31631   
12    Space Newfies (1493) [17,1]    254    7032380    20271   
13    UV (1545) [48,80]    242    3803599    14738   
14    you noob ! (1536) [27,22]    232    6460213    21424   
15    (1521) [3,29]    219    739248    6889   
16    Lexiconians (1489) [37,40]    215    1849078    12661   
17    (1485) [16,20]    210    1034148    6697   
18    hercles for ever (1544) [34,9]    191    7942856    13922   
19    Galactic Herpes (1549) [24,37]    186    4784371    15467   
20    ... (1506) [49,28]    181    1949834    4199   
21    Smiters (1520) [26,3]    178    512598    4683   
22    So tru!! (1487) [77,79]    168    1518905    7151   
23    (1495) [77,21]    167    2014554    8032   
24    Planet Mado (1552) [20,25]    164    1331830    3093   
25    Cheyenne (1502) [66,70]    160    1832381    5510   
26    (1528) [28,68]    147    2103982    15408   
27    Winter is Coming (1540) [66,43]    147    392645    1482   
28    SaiyanzAlly (1507) [48,70]    146    1761583    2020   
29    (1496) [58,40]    144    7902803    13748   
30    (1535) [45,61]    133    1679082    11656   
31    Hypocrisy (1492) [79,58]    116    1743888    11444   
32    Arrogance (1533) [40,73]    93    2118660    14737   
33    Bank of Iron-All We Do (1551) [8,55]    83    1415364    8349   
34    (1511) [20,70]    73    2125681    8038   
35    (1522) [37,29]    47    113335    196   
36    Cameroons (1555) [51,55]    37    2102071    17849   
37    (1531) [16,52]    24    41485    50   
38    (1523) [42,10]    7    14480    0   
39    (1490) [1,39]    1    2250    0

Round 15 NW

Rank      Family      Planets      Networth      Score
1    (1501) [42,52]    254    29112182    31631   
2    The House of Black and White (1503) [69,33]    412    23947766    31812   
3    NOPE! (1510) [71,50]    447    21484185    31397   
4    on the move (1515) [47,40]    666    15499772    36244   
5    funky (1488) [36,1]    308    10103050    19148   
6    hercles for ever (1544) [34,9]    191    7942856    13922   
7    (1496) [58,40]    144    7902803    13748   
8    Space Newfies (1493) [17,1]    254    7032380    20271   
9    you noob ! (1536) [27,22]    232    6460213    21424   
10    (1546) [63,15]    509    5212497    24173   
11    Galactic Herpes (1549) [24,37]    186    4784371    15467   
12    Enders Game (1529) [59,9]    399    4014891    17900   
13    UV (1545) [48,80]    242    3803599    14738   
14    Give me Wings! - LiGhTgUnS (1550) [43,34]    1009    3730441    35483   
15    P-own~age at it's best! (1543) [57,29]    358    3689830    18701   
16    DIAGEO (1483) [58,20]    329    2962708    16218   
17    (1511) [20,70]    73    2125681    8038   
18    Arrogance (1533) [40,73]    93    2118660    14737   
19    (1528) [28,68]    147    2103982    15408   
20    Cameroons (1555) [51,55]    37    2102071    17849   
21    (1495) [77,21]    167    2014554    8032   
22    ... (1506) [49,28]    181    1949834    4199   
23    Lexiconians (1489) [37,40]    215    1849078    12661   
24    Cheyenne (1502) [66,70]    160    1832381    5510   
25    SaiyanzAlly (1507) [48,70]    146    1761583    2020   
26    Hypocrisy (1492) [79,58]    116    1743888    11444   
27    (1535) [45,61]    133    1679082    11656   
28    So tru!! (1487) [77,79]    168    1518905    7151   
29    Bank of Iron-All We Do (1551) [8,55]    83    1415364    8349   
30    Planet Mado (1552) [20,25]    164    1331830    3093   
31    (1485) [16,20]    210    1034148    6697   
32    (1521) [3,29]    219    739248    6889   
33    Smiters (1520) [26,3]    178    512598    4683   
34    Winter is Coming (1540) [66,43]    147    392645    1482   
35    Peyote Pilots (1530) [8,22]    260    359749    5962   
36    (1522) [37,29]    47    113335    196   
37    (1531) [16,52]    24    41485    50   
38    (1523) [42,10]    7    14480    0   
39    (1490) [1,39]    1    2250    0

Round 11 Size:

Rank     Empire     Race     Planets     Networth
1     Holland     Qezians     694     2251895
2     Titan     Qezians     635     7420424
3     GVR     Qezians     609     3837903
4     Platypus     Qezians     547     5171399
5     SHAFT     Qezians     471     8866124
6     Happy     Qezians     362     2232938
7     Aleph     Qezians     315     1814403
8     ClaUs     Qezians     304     12046682
9     Winner     Qezians     291     3425646
10     ZzzZZ     Qezians     280     14027346
11     Najm     Qezians     268     6535825
12     Roman     Qezians     257     8509727
13     Eagles     Qezians     228     12820005
14     Empire name     Qezians     228     3358519
15     Zanharim     Qezians     225     4669772
16     Oberon Khan     Qezians     223     6060475
17     Life     Qezians     218     2990935
18     Immortal Kings     Qezians     154     1563189
19     Ravens     Qezians     154     1340483
20     CharlesEllroy     Qezians     149     2429941
21     Dirty Randy     Qezians     141     1782725
22     Shinobi     Qezians     135     2558603
23     Aloras     Qezians     114     3037924
24     765486     Qezians     93     3506153
25     Inconspicuous     Qezians     88     1638014
26     Kanal 2     Qezians     86     5411552
27     Brainania     Qezians     80     1680531
28     CDR     Qezians     75     295975
29     ThaWarDog     Qezians     65     1889609
30     Dimpel     Qezians     64     995957
31     Meija     Qezians     57     787652
32     Lone Cat     Qezians     51     1179268
33     4G     Qezians     45     106266
34     AE86     Qezians     32     2678553
35     Eastwood     Qezians     20     115628
36     TheFappening     Qezians     15     65204
37     Koalas     Qezians     4     6640
38     Evil Princess Sara     Qezians     1     4722
39     Elbow     Qezians     1     3659
40     Bristoniopia     Qezians     1     3483
41     Telerion     Qezians     1     1681
42     Surprised By Sin     Qezians     1     1414
43     Catadonia     Qezians     1     1292
44     WideWorldofCrazy     Qezians     1     1270
45     catiusca     Qezians     1     1265
46     Wrenched Warlords     Qezians     1     1262
47     Curufin     Qezians     1     1256
48     Matt     Qezians     1     1256

Round 11 NW:

1    ZzzzZZZ (864) [4,57]     280     14027346     32785     
2    Venom (821) [63,63]     228     12820005     27135     
3    Easyway all a happy New Year (858) [13,46]     304     12046682     32495     
4    KnoX (828) [40,87]     471     8866124     37331     
5    Aeonflux (837) [73,36]     257     8509727     28436     
6    Death to 75% rule (824) [84,90]     635     7420424     37638     
7    PULSAR (834) [75,77]     268     6535825     31396     
8    Ur irrelephant!!! Wololooooo (850) [52,94]     223     6060475     23996     
9    X (866) [8,4]     86     5411552     14883     
10    Toooooeeeeeeet (827) [47,28]     547     5171399     27882     
11    Home System Opper (879) [93,92]     225     4669772     26797     
12    Sol [Nearly] Invictus GVR (820) [3,48]     609     3837903     33224     
13    10590107 (813) [26,16]     93     3506153     13975     
14    You All Know I'm the WINNER (883) [9,39]     291     3425646     28323     
15    RTFM (860) [63,77]     228     3358519     24225     
16    (855) [34,6]     114     3037924     9042     
17    No One Goes Quietly (846) [18,70]     218     2990935     20214     
18    (808) [67,23]     32     2678553     9182     
19    ~The Blackest One~ (825) [2,96]     135     2558603     20663     
20    Honey Badgers (841) [89,77]     149     2429941     19503     
21    The Voice - of - LiGhTGuNs (872) [61,34]     694     2251895     34764     
22    The Gef (842) [68,3]     362     2232938     23737     
23    Lady Of War (836) [54,80]     65     1889609     11803     
24    piranha (871) [74,45]     315     1814403     25386     
25    Toilet Kitchen (874) [33,49]     141     1782725     15772     
26    What are we doing tonight? (822) [19,84]     80     1680531     10789     
27    FarmVille (848) [14,96]     88     1638014     18235     
28    (863) [7,66]     154     1563189     13064     
29    Ravens (868) [57,70]     154     1340483     16292     
30    Lone Cat (833) [27,97]     51     1179268     14545     
31    :-] (812) [87,27]     64     995957     7212     
32    (844) [17,7]     57     787652     11654     
33    (835) [29,73]     75     295975     1327     
34    Wot? (867) [36,19]     20     115628     546     
35    300Mbs/s (851) [77,21]     45     106266     6781     
36    (885) [46,79]     15     65204     243     
37    (809) [43,70]     4     6640     0     
38    Grumpy Old Man (832) [42,44]     1     4722     0     
39    Crioz (865) [25,64]     1     3659     0     
40    (840) [19,28]     1     3483     0     
41    (819) [14,59]     1     1681     0     
42    Penis (817) [4,13]     1     1414     0     
43    (870) [73,64]     1     1292     0     
44    (831) [87,45]     1     1270     0     
45    (830) [6,31]     1     1265     0     
46    (854) [14,17]     1     1262     0     
47    (839) [34,29]     1     1256     24     
48    (877) [42,52]     1     1256     0

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

Not ignoring you, trying to get this into excel between tasks at work so I can run some numbers.

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

So, again I'm at work and have only had time to glance at these numbers quickly, but a few things.

1.  Supernova was originally put into place to give newer players a place to get the hang of the game without having a leader bashing them over the head with what they "have" to do.  It was never a galaxy aimed to cater to the top players, I believe it was just opened as ftp because there was room and it gave people a chance to play solo.  (correct me if I'm wrong other mods)

2.  The concept of NW factoring into morale loss at all is entirely new to the new system.  It used to be 100% individual size.

3.  As stated, the new system was aimed at leveling the playing field. 

4.  As long as Size is what is considered the winning factor, it will be taken into account for morale.


Round 18
47 players
2 players with less than 10 planets
Avg planet count from 20-30: 210.9
Avg planet count from 1-10: 438.9
% of Mid players to Top players: 48%

Round 15
39 players
2 players with less than 10 planets
Avg planet count from 20-30: 157.7
Avg planet count from 1-10: 469.7
% of Mid players to Top players: 33.5%

Round 11
48 players
12 planets with less than 10 planets
Avg planet count from 20-30: 99.09
Avg planet count from 1-10: 450.8
% of Mid players to Top players: 21.9%


What I'm seeing strictly from these numbers...is an evening of the playing field.  Granted it's difficult to pin down exactly what's going on.  I've been told this round there was an excess of planets (we're working on this, next round we may cut the # of available planets in half), which would also lead to less conflict as exploring is just plain easier than trying to orchestrate an attack.  50 planets in 5 days from a small player is considerably less than the damage that used to be done by farmers
Round 15:
NW: 14    Give me Wings! - LiGhTgUnS (1550) [43,34]    1009    3730441    35483
Size: 1    Give me Wings! - LiGhTgUnS (1550) [43,34]    1009    3730441    35483   
(we all know it wasn't just top players that contributed to that planet count tongue)

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

8 Reply by Lone Tiger (edited by Lone Tiger 05-Jan-2016 19:37:50)

  • Posts: 1,724
  • Tag points: 5

Re: Imperial Boring

What could i do to convince you that the moral system needs to be fixed or dropped completely.  Or who do i need to convince.

I'm not really interested in endless posts explaining how it's broken.  I mean at some point it becomes stupid complaining, and I think we may have already reached that point.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

Lone Tiger wrote:

What could i do to convince you that the moral system needs to be fixed or dropped completely.  Or who do i need to convince.

I'm not really interested in endless posts explaining how it's broken.  I mean at some point it becomes stupid complaining, and I think we may have already reached that point.

An explanation for why the morale system is broken in Starburst that can't easily be answered by adjusting strategy/gameplay would be a start.

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

10 Reply by LiGhTGuNs (edited by LiGhTGuNs 06-Jan-2016 17:27:45)

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

Undeath wrote:

3.  As stated, the new system was aimed at leveling the playing field. 
4.  As long as Size is what is considered the winning factor, it will be taken into account for morale.

These statements conflict. The morale formula should reflect the goals of morale. If the goal of morale is to level the playing fiels it should discourage conflict with players that have less capabilities and make conflict between equals the preferred option. Size is not related to this goal at all. As such I think you could loose size from the equation.


Undeath wrote:

What I'm seeing strictly from these numbers...is an evening of the playing field.

Based on your analysis we should remove attacking completely from the game. That would result in an even more level playing field smile
My point with the stats, that in general there is less conflict. Based on my exprience in round 18, I conclude morale is limiting. Since morale is limiting I changed my gameplay and checked what the most efficient way to gain planets is. In the current system farming smaller players is more efficient than saving and warring equals. The main reason for this is that high NW players with a low planet count (size problem 1) will cost you aroudn the same morale than a low NW player with alot of planets (size problem 2).
I think the goal of the morale formula is to stimulate attacks on the high NW player. However, because size is included attacking the low NW, high planet count player is the preferred option.

Undeath wrote:

Round 15: Size: 1    Give me Wings! - LiGhTgUnS (1550) [43,34]    1009    3730441    35483   
(we all know it wasn't just top players that contributed to that planet count tongue)

That is correct, the morale system stimulated attacking players with high planet count, so I did smile  (Devilz at one point had 570 planets and less than 2 mill nw...). Note, this round had a 70% NW cap on attacks! It is  strange you on the one hand make fun of me attacking smaller players with high planet count and on the other hand insist of keeping size in the morale formula.
BTW, in my defence, I think I have skirmished almost the complete top 30 that round.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

Undeath wrote:

3.  As stated, the new system was aimed at leveling the playing field. 
4.  As long as Size is what is considered the winning factor, it will be taken into account for morale.

These statements conflict. The morale formula should reflect the goals of morale. If the goal of morale is to level the playing fiels it should discourage conflict with players that have less capabilities and make conflict between equals the preferred option. Size is not related to this goal at all. As such I think you could loose size from the equation.

This would provide players the ability to keep nw minimal while having unlimited planets.  We'd very quickly see someone doing something like building next to nothing but portals, transports, and ground....and sniping expos.  If we take planets completely out of the equation, we could very well have someone with 1500 planets (again, the value people consider the one that decides the winner) that costs 100% morale to attack.
If size was not related to a player's capabilities (ex: Round 15), our community would not consider it the statistic that decides a winner smile


Undeath wrote:

What I'm seeing strictly from these numbers...is an evening of the playing field.

Based on your analysis we should remove attacking completely from the game. That would result in an even more level playing field smile
My point with the stats, that in general there is less conflict. Based on my exprience in round 18, I conclude morale is limiting. Since morale is limiting I changed my gameplay and checked what the most efficient way to gain planets is. In the current system farming smaller players is more efficient than saving and warring equals. The main reason for this is that high NW players with a low planet count (size problem 1) will cost you aroudn the same morale than a low NW player with alot of planets (size problem 2).
I think the goal of the morale formula is to stimulate attacks on the high NW player. However, because size is included attacking the low NW, high planet count player is the preferred option.

1.  Morale is meant to be limiting....
2.  Originally we had NW weighted much heavier in SN but changed it do to complaints.  We can look at this again I guess?


Undeath wrote:

Round 15: Size: 1    Give me Wings! - LiGhTgUnS (1550) [43,34]    1009    3730441    35483   
(we all know it wasn't just top players that contributed to that planet count tongue)

That is correct, the morale system stimulated attacking players with high planet count, so I did smile  (Devilz at one point had 570 planets and less than 2 mill nw...). Note, this round had a 70% NW cap on attacks! It is  strange you on the one hand make fun of me attacking smaller players with high planet count and on the other hand insist of keeping size in the morale formula.
BTW, in my defence, I think I have skirmished almost the complete top 30 that round.

Didn't mean to make fun of you, was just pointing out a fact.  The new morale formula promotes attacking players at or above your nw and planet count smile

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

12 Reply by LiGhTGuNs (edited by LiGhTGuNs 06-Jan-2016 22:58:02)

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

Undeath wrote:

This would provide players the ability to keep nw minimal while having unlimited planets.  We'd very quickly see someone doing something like building next to nothing but portals, transports, and ground....and sniping expos.  If we take planets completely out of the equation, we could very well have someone with 1500 planets (again, the value people consider the one that decides the winner) that costs 100% morale to attack.
If size was not related to a player's capabilities (ex: Round 15), our community would not consider it the statistic that decides a winner smile

This would not be an issue at all, since the 35% NW rule results in 100% morale loss anyway, regardless of planet count. Currently expo's can already be snipped by low NW players (1932 proved that in round 18). At 1000+ planets you will have so much NW in planets that keeping a very low NW would make you very vulnarable to attacks from players with equal nw. Also the competing players on size would find this person a very interesting target to drop NW on.


Undeath wrote:

1.  Morale is meant to be limiting....
2.  Originally we had NW weighted much heavier in SN but changed it do to complaints.  We can look at this again I guess?

My main problems with the current implementation:
- When you can choose between "high nw and low size" targets vs "low nw and big size" targets, from a morale standpoint it is preferred to attack the low NW player. This is because saving for the big war takes time at which morale is wasted. The low NW player you can attack straight away.
- Due to the high morale drain when having a big size, players will keep their last 150 expo's until eor (having less planets this round will help against that I think). This limits conflict during the round and this limits top NW players from being interesting targets.


Undeath wrote:

The new morale formula promotes attacking players at or above your nw and planet count smile

As stated before, the time you need saving for a high NW target wastes so much morale, that it is more interesting to farm low NW players. Both waiting (saving) and attacking low NW players (waiting for recovering from large morale drain) are boring. The morale formule should i.m.h.o. stimulate massive conflict between equal NW players and discourage attacking low NW players. Competitors on size will balance each other (by jumping or dropping NW) smile, we don't need the game to impose such limits.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

This is totally a player preference.  If we're discussing the best way to increase your planet count, you're absolutely right attacking a low nw high planet count player is the way to go.  It's not your fault that someone didn't build any defense.  It won't be nearly as entertaining as if you battled it out with someone that can compete with you, but if you prefer gaining planets to having fun that's 100% your choice smile  We developed a system that nudges players to refrain from targeting people smaller than them (initially the nudging was more like a vicious shove, but was toned down...which can be revisited)

What I'm seeing is that you prioritize winning in size in a galaxy intended to give new players a place to learn over having fun, which is totally fine...but we're not going to change the system in SN to favor bigger players.

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

Undeath wrote:


What I'm seeing is that you prioritize winning in size in a galaxy intended to give new players a place to learn over having fun, which is totally fine...but we're not going to change the system in SN to favor bigger players.

Fun for me is gaining planets. I don't really care if the opponent is ranked 1st or 40th. The current morale formula  skews my choice towards low nw, high size players. If you intended the galaxy for new players it should favour attacking high nw players above size. To make that happen attacking high nw players needs to cost less morale. For now the game is just boring.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

LiGhTGuNs wrote:
Undeath wrote:


What I'm seeing is that you prioritize winning in size in a galaxy intended to give new players a place to learn over having fun, which is totally fine...but we're not going to change the system in SN to favor bigger players.

Fun for me is gaining planets. I don't really care if the opponent is ranked 1st or 40th. The current morale formula  skews my choice towards low nw, high size players. If you intended the galaxy for new players it should favour attacking high nw players above size. To make that happen attacking high nw players needs to cost less morale. For now the game is just boring.

"The current morale formula  skews my choice towards low nw, high size players."
This isn't true....NW is weighted significantly heavier than size.  If you attack someone equal to you in planet count and nw, vs attacking someone equal to you in planet count but half your nw, you'd lose less than 1/3 the morale per attack.

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

Also, regardless of what we do with the morale formula, as long as size is the winning factor people will always look to attack low nw high planet count players.  Most players are lazy and value winning over challenge.

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

I recognise the 1/3.  But this isn't a big enough incentive  for me to attack top players.  Reasons:

1)You need to save at least 1 or 2 days for war on a high ranked player. This wastes at least 240% to 480%  morale. During that time you could have gained 10 to 40 planets from a low nw player you could start attacking straight away.
2) You will need to jump fleet on high nw players to minimise losses. This increases nw and increases morale drain, rendering the morale advantage useless.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

LiGhTGuNs wrote:

Fun for me is gaining planets. I don't really care if the opponent is ranked 1st or 40th.


I don't understand why this thread exists hmm

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

Undeath wrote:
LiGhTGuNs wrote:

Fun for me is gaining planets. I don't really care if the opponent is ranked 1st or 40th.

I don't understand why this thread exists hmm

Because morale currently limits the number of attacks you can do too much i.m.h.o. Hence, imperial boring.

Because of the limitation of morale I looked at the most efficient way to gain planets, which is attacking small nw high size players. This should not be the preferred option i.m.h.o. in a galaxy for new players.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

Increasing the weight that nw has on morale will increase overall morale loss, thus not helping your problem (in SN it's already roughly 70%nw, 30%size, and since multiple players have admitted to intentionally avoiding people their size it's entirely possible that we'll install an added penalty for attacking people significantly smaller). 
We will not be removing size from the formula completely because this:
"At 1000+ planets you will have so much NW in planets that keeping a very low NW would make you very vulnarable to attacks from players with equal nw."
Is not true.  You could very easily have less than 1mil nw with 1000 planets if your only goal was planet sniping, since you'd just need enough mfs to support 100 trannies and 1000 ground. (cfs would be pointless, as it makes more sense in this scenario to let your troops disband and to sell iron as you need cash or other resources in order to not waste money on upkeep).  You were #25 in nw in SN in round 18, at ~3.25million.  Removing size from the calculation, it would require you 50+ morale for each attack on this player, and you were tiny nw wise.

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

21 Reply by LiGhTGuNs (edited by LiGhTGuNs 07-Jan-2016 21:22:40)

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

Undeath wrote:

  You were #25 in nw in SN in round 18, at ~3.25million.  Removing size from the calculation, it would require you 50+ morale for each attack on this player, and you were tiny nw wise.

I would be perfectly happy and able to drop to 1.1 mill nw.

My eor nw included only:
525 planets
600k nw in science
2k lasers (no other infra)
Fleet (which could be disbanded)

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,743
  • Tag points: 85

Re: Imperial Boring

cool!

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

23 Reply by LiGhTGuNs (edited by LiGhTGuNs 26-Feb-2016 20:28:37)

  • Posts: 2,404
  • Tag points: 33

Re: Imperial Boring

Undeath wrote:

"The current morale formula  skews my choice towards low nw, high size players."
This isn't true....NW is weighted significantly heavier than size.  If you attack someone equal to you in planet count and nw, vs attacking someone equal to you in planet count but half your nw, you'd lose less than 1/3 the morale per attack.

Rank      Family      Planets      Networth      Score
1    ~ Life Must Go On ~ (2044) [13,23]    226    12779282    40272 => 9% morale to attack
   
10    The Force of LiGhTgUnS (1999) [29,4]    548    5471770       35550    => me

16    Vindictive (2018) [52,14]    290    3959292      37452 =>12% morale to attack

So,  nw is weighted heavier than size...? Please tell me how this stimulates to attack high NW players.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 134
  • Tag points: 1

Re: Imperial Boring

interesting....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

25 Reply by Orbit (edited by Orbit 06-Mar-2016 19:59:38)

  • Posts: 1,599

Re: Imperial Boring

A good post Lightguns.  Undeath I think you need to be a bit more open minded on the subject instead of being really defensive.  I'm guessing this idea is like your baby and you're reluctant to admit it's a failure.  But in truth it is a failure,  maybe not complete but in too many aspects of the game.

You want to talk about strategy -

People sign up and play this game to win, and now they have to "play to lose"  because losing means winning....  that's insane.

I have been a mod in your position Undeath but I have always understood the backbones of this game, and that is.. winners win, and losers lose.  But it's just a game and people return next round to fight harder. 

When people whinged about being farmed, they were venting their anger,  but they were not leaving the game due to it.
People will leave the game due to it being frustratingly boring now.....

Tweaks were needed to the farming situation...not an overhaul.

-You have attackers working their asses off to gain portal shares to not even be able to take them due to morale loss
-Bankers & Resourcers are almost redundant /  Pax can't attack & op
-Custom race attackers have become pointless because you can't afford to PI, its more beneficial to just suicide and hope for the best.
-Fig runs are now pointless because you cant afford the morale loss.
-Failing attacks is now unbelievable frustrating
-You made a great new opp for wardancers that is now redundant,  as well as others like check relations (why is this still here)
-The new core system doesnt even work (go test it)
-Enemies can now just explore all over your core and you cannot remove them due to morle
-You can now actually nap every single family and explore for victory
-Wars are now incredibly slow and dull
- Pop banking is now redundant
- having a potential moral gain of only 10 per turn isn't enough when 1 attack costs an average of 10 morale for bigger fams,  people won't play a game which you can only make 1 attack every 1 hour. 


I could go on and on and on and on and on Undeath - but your ignoring all these issues to save face.... can you address some of these concerns?

"It's very quiet on the political arena. I wish someone would stir up some trouble!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points