Reduction of fleets efficiency

[Tekki]

I'd really like to see the randomisation factor on planet massing reduced before any changes are made because at least when I planet mass that factor seems very large.

[Sarevok]

@Tekki: I think Jason said the variation is between 80% and 105%. Not sure if this helps.

@GC: Excelent points, and very valid. Why not build 1 MS with massive hangers, and use it to mass down planet defences, before then going and getting other to finish them and taking them. Didn't Robe take this path?

[Tekki]

Sarevok, I’m not entirely sure what he said it was but that seems like one hell of a large randomization. Admin J did say at the second meeting that in beta he’d altered the required percent to between 15-20% but again wouldn’t say what the randomization was.

Some alliances have gone that way on the mothership fleets and while it’s a valid tactic you gotta trust the person a lot and it’s not an entirely fair tactic either since when they sell, as they invariably do, the profits of having such a good set of fleets never translate to the alliance. I’m not invalidating it as a tactic but there are reasons why it’s not done more often.

[Sarevok]

I think what he said was (in a rough order)

1) The new requirement is 20-25% strength to damage
2) Revised to 15-20%
3) The randomisation of power is 80%-105%

[Tekki]

Still seems mighty high on the randomisation factor to me but I might have missed something.

Anyway if that is the randomisation factor should be reduced - the factor that is. That 80% is yeah ouchie! Maybe 90-105%?

[Sarevok]

Isn't it similar power flucuation with normal attacking as well?

[Tekki]

It might be but in normal playing if I stuff it up, I don't have all my weapons delete on me, I just have to repair them. Since fleets can go BLIP there is less tolerance for error. Additionally in normal playing, IF I desire I can raise my strike to above their defence, that's not something that can be done with MS Fleets to planetry defences again giving less tolerance for error, IMO and therefore what should be a reduction in the randomisation factor.

[Sarevok]

I can probably accept less tollarence in damage factor (25% total is a fair bit). Though what is exactly stopping you building more fleets(or hangers), just like building more weapons, and training more troops.

As it stands, planet have a soft-cap for defences, after you hit 500k, they double, then go up by that ammount every 100k. Feets always increase at a specific ammount every hanger (something like 1m/upgraded slot)

[Tekki]

I can probably accept less tollarence in damage factor (25% total is a fair bit). Though what is exactly stopping you building more fleets(or hangers), just like building more weapons, and training more troops.

As it stands, planet have a soft-cap for defences, after you hit 500k, they double, then go up by that ammount every 100k. Feets always increase at a specific ammount every hanger (something like 1m/upgraded slot)

What exactly is stopping people increasing their hangers? Absolutely nothing EXCEPT if I want to mass a 5t planet defence and I have say 100K fleets (150billion power with a lv 10 MS stat), then I kind of can’t mass that 5t defence. To mass a 5t planet defence I need, 18% of it minimum (we will say 18%), that’s 900billion in fleets which by the way is 598k RAW fleets with a lv 10 MS tech. In case you are wondering 598k raw fleets cost 1.78Quad naq (0 fleets to 598k), plus another 25trillion for the MS tech on an ascended account, which then cost 17.28trillion to arm without even going for repair cost.

The above example, repeated for different planetary defences:

Planet Defence - Minimum Fleet Strength - Fleet numbers- RAW fleets- Cost of raw fleets- Cost to arm raw fleets
1,000,000,000,000 - 180,000,000,000 - 155,709 - 119,776 - 72,000,000,000,000 - 3,467,505,600,000
2,000,000,000,000 - 360,000,000,000 - 311,419 - 239,553 - 288,001,200,000,000 - 6,935,011,200,000
3,000,000,000,000 - 540,000,000,000 - 467,128 - 359,329 - 648,001,800,000,000 - 10,402,516,800,000
4,000,000,000,000 - 720,000,000,000 - 622,837 - 479,106 - 1,152,002,400,000,000 - 13,870,022,400,000
5,000,000,000,000 - 900,000,000,000 - 778,547 - 598,882 - 1,800,003,000,000,000 - 17,337,528,000,000
I’ve used a little bit of rounding on the fleet costs but only up to the nearest 10k fleets

Now the above costs assume absolutely no randomisation factor so that you don’t lose your fleets.

So no, you can’t just ‘increase’ your fleets to mass a planet.

Normal attack and defence are set up very differently from planet attack and defence and should be treated as such. Making comparisons between normal massing and planet massing is rather silly IMO because of the fundamental differences between the two. For a start, if you log in mid mass you can repair your weapons – that’s not possible on a planet. When planet massing a big planetary defence, there is no option to do it with near equal fleets simply because of the cost. Infact the FIRST time you break the planet defence you steal the planet. All of these work to make normal massing and planet massing completely different.

[Sarevok]

Planet Defence - Total Cost at MindBlowing - Minimum Fleet Strength - Fleet numbers- RAW fleets- Cost of raw fleets- Cost to arm raw fleets
1,000,000,000,000 - 30,000,000,000,000 - 180,000,000,000 - 155,709 - 119,776 - 72,000,000,000,000 - 3,467,505,600,000
2,000,000,000,000 - 87,000,000,000,000 - 360,000,000,000 - 311,419 - 239,553 - 288,001,200,000,000 - 6,935,011,200,000
3,000,000,000,000 - 315,000,000,000,000 - 540,000,000,000 - 467,128 - 359,329 - 648,001,800,000,000 - 10,402,516,800,000
4,000,000,000,000 - 746,000,000,000,000 - 720,000,000,000 - 622,837 - 479,106 - 1,152,002,400,000,000 - 13,870,022,400,000
5,000,000,000,000 - 1,376,000,000,000,000 - 900,000,000,000 - 778,547 - 598,882 - 1,800,003,000,000,000 - 17,337,528,000,000

There we go, with the included planet costs

Also, as GC said. What is more likely, an alliance will build up 1 MS, to be able to take down large defences, or an alliance will build up 1 pllanets defences, to protect a planet against attackers.

[Neimenljivi]

I completely agree with Tekki.
So you're all talking about alliance stuff..Sure yeah, what about lone wolfs? Gonna give them 300% increase to fleets just to compensate?

All battles should be counted as player vs player as from what I've known alliances were introduced later than player accounts thus making wars between players separately was the prime goal and alliances were implanted just to make wars on bigger scale and to "officially" be friends with someone in a way everyone can see

The randomization factor should be decreased A LOT. Even 10% is a very big one with the stakes of planet massing being so high.
If the sole % needed to attack a planet without losing fleets is increased I think the only fair bit would be to decrease the randomization factor thus removing variables a bit.

After all, the pilots when faced destruction are a lot more motivated to survive thus with their training the variable on how much damage they inflict should be decreased.

Or maybe the randomization factor could be decreased in relation to how many planetary defenses you have already destroyed? Just a thought

~N

[Juliette]

I'm not a big fan of the change. I can see how the disproportionate costs could drive someone to .. annoyance.
And I agree with Neim, the change was too big. A smaller, or a more gradual reduction of efficiency, pre-announced.. might be a good thing.. but the doubling is too much, too soon.

[Tekki]

Essentially because normal massing/attacking of defence is so different from planet massing/attacking this argument comes down to what is considered reasonable cost. In normal massing it is possible to build up almost instantaneously to take out a defence, no matter how big and the defence owner may save it by repairing weapons and such. In planet massing there is no option like that. Both the planetary defences and the hangers required to remove them will take time to build. The question then becomes something that Neimenljivi has touched on. Is the destruction of the big planetary defences the sole purview of alliances who can build up one person (with the attendant risks) or is it something that should be reasonably done by an individual. Once that’s answered then the sides of the argument are clearer.

An alternate suggestion would be to make both planet defences and fleets cost a lot LESS and reduce damage to planets when they are stolen to say 5%. It would hurt then to lose a planet but not as much and the back and forth with planets would then become a norm. At the moment, nicking the really well developed planets is a major accomplishment and usually is a significant blow for the individual. Doing this doesn’t lessen the value of a good planet but perhaps gives us a more dynamic planet stealing game.

[Sarevok]

Actually, similar mechanics do apply to smaller values of strength. If someone builds a 100k defence, then the aggressor only needs 40k hangers (about 8T naq). Which for many with the Naq stored in their bank, isn't a hard task. However, this is really only equivalent to a 1-3T defence.

If we are to take a, lets say 12T defence (eg massive costs), then it's no simple task to build an attack to damage that, and is certainly not instantaneous. Similar scenario with larger planet defences vs larger fleets (eg 500k, and 200k hangers). Both take substantial time to build, and the defence takes substantial time to destroy.

I'm all for the last suggestion. Although i would say make them similar costs. As in, if someone spends the Naq to build lets say 6 planets to 500k, then the cost requirements for fleets should be similar to that. Similar to the closeness of realm defence and attack

[Robe]

I agree with Neimenljivi, Tekki and Juliette.

The randomization factor should be statiscially insignificant.

Otherwise these updates will make planets largely invulnerable.