alternative play methods?

If you need help or want to talk about the game use this forum.

Moderator: Support Moderators

Forum rules
Please check our Knowledgebase for FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) before posting a new question here.
flo3030
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun 15 Apr, 2018 05:13
Reputation: 0

alternative play methods?

Postby flo3030 » Sun 15 Apr, 2018 05:37

hello, i just wanted to put some thoughts into question, ive played this game quite awhile now and it seems there is a projected way to play,

how many people have tried alternative styles, and what is the success rate.
i ask this because i wonder why play a game that, has a set starting point, with an outline of how to proceed, and if you dont follow the rules then you get destroyed. if this was 100% the case then wouldn't all characters basically have the same mirror image of an account.

ill start with this, ion frigates and ion bombers. this seems to be a specialty but why, most people dont know the ratios, and thus it seems effective at just the right place at the right time?.

but what about defenses, has anyone ever tried to {late game} have 20-50 laser turrets, with the tech researched up far beyond what is "recommended"..., would it not at some point be able to defend against any number or fighters/bombers, perhaps it needs the un-recommended deflection shield to become effective. but has anyone tried that.
it could be accommodated by ion turrets also for the mid-ships am i wrong, if deflection shields also were researched to a high enough level?

is the game set up to linear? where... if you want to be successful you have to follow the pre made outlines of strategy, and if so then .. i could just read the results of the end game right. so why play? the winner would always be the same either the first player, most active, or remaining player after all people left to go to a new server.

im trying to see if there has been success in playing the game, by not following guides and using your own intuition gained from reading the descriptors of in-game menus. or does everone just follow guides, made by people who have been playing this game forever, and thus sets the standard.?.

User avatar
Whis
Global Moderator
Posts: 758
Joined: Thu 28 Nov, 2013 06:53
Reputation: 27

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby Whis » Mon 16 Apr, 2018 00:17

I would recommend utilizing one of the many battle calculators floating about and put in different tech/defense/fleet combinations and see why there is a linear play method.

flo3030
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun 15 Apr, 2018 05:13
Reputation: 0

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby flo3030 » Mon 16 Apr, 2018 02:11

that would defeat the point of posting such a question not to mention ive found on numerous occasions, the battle calculators being incorrect(meaning the calculations didn't produce the numbers that the actual battle produced, and i punched in all the figures, before and after the battle'SSS), and im not about to make a new one

User avatar
Whis
Global Moderator
Posts: 758
Joined: Thu 28 Nov, 2013 06:53
Reputation: 27

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby Whis » Mon 16 Apr, 2018 03:26

Kahar is damn near perfect. And the others I’ve used are pretty close. I’d say there’s a chance you punched something in slightly incorrect?

Anyway, that is the best I can tell you.

Edit: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=95568

User avatar
Platypus
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 02:01
Reputation: 11
Guild: My house

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby Platypus » Mon 16 Apr, 2018 04:30

The reason as far as I can see that IFs are used is that they are fast and can bust through capitals at good ratios. They also get decent ratios against smaller shielded units. The speed is the most important factor for me. You can respond to incoming fleets faster than cruisers and HC. Frigates are the same for speed and great against HC and cruisers. That being said late game I’ve seen many different specs. It all depends on how the player plays the game.

As for the different turrets there is no point making that many laser turrets. That takes up too much space. Space that can be used for more ship yards space ports or anything else. Planetary rings and shields are a much better way to go.

Logic isn't necessary to win all arguments. Sometimes u just need to be the one who keeps saying "nuh uhhh"
User avatar
Death Smurf
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue 24 Feb, 2009 04:23
Reputation: 42
Guild: BORG - A
SS - B
MOJO (GM) - C

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby Death Smurf » Mon 16 Apr, 2018 11:11

Over the years people have tried the 'alternate' methods you have suggested.

I remember circa 2007, when people were still figuring out base defences and optimal options, it was suggested that we all have 30 IT with our PR/PS.. and that theory was disproved. Then it was 1 turret (inc barracks) to offset defence, and that theory was disproved (and you can still find people on the older servers with this theory of defence still on the go too and they won't listen..).

But as Whis said, use a battle calc. Here is a video on how to use KaHaR's.

Platypus is quite correct, once you achieve PR + PS, downgrade any other turrets. They are not worth it and just take up energy that you can use elsewhere, and the space they inhabit can be used for prod facilities.

IB's are definitely a specialty unit.

Is this a case, you are trying to find a spec that suits you?

im trying to see if there has been success in playing the game, by not following guides and using your own intuition gained from reading the descriptors of in-game menus. or does everone just follow guides, made by people who have been playing this game forever, and thus sets the standard.?.


It depends what you define as 'success'. When I first began (it'll be 11 years in June, I think), I remember the guild I was in wanted people to push for heavy hitters, so we had been all HC/FT.. but in opposite, there had been another locale based guild (who were all very good players), and their entire guild was CR/FT for fast attack speed - and they had timings down perfect for landing.

Is success measured in by still being here, several years later? Or just being stubborn.

Incidentally, IF/FT FTW :mrgreen:

Ceti Historian:
> The Ceti Historian
* Has received a R/L death threat about AE (gimme the e-tears!)
User avatar
Soldier48
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 29 Dec, 2008 03:18
Reputation: 30
Guild: SPuD
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby Soldier48 » Thu 19 Apr, 2018 18:09

Death Smurf wrote:Over the years people have tried the 'alternate' methods you have suggested.

I remember circa 2007, when people were still figuring out base defences and optimal options, it was suggested that we all have 30 IT with our PR/PS.. and that theory was disproved. Then it was 1 turret (inc barracks) to offset defence, and that theory was disproved (and you can still find people on the older servers with this theory of defence still on the go too and they won't listen..).


With what he said, this game is in its 12th year since it was released. Over the years players realized "alternative" builds weren't working.

I mean my alpha account still has Tundras, and Arids as bases, while I haven't disbanded them because it is too costly to rebulid, but back in the day it was thought any astro will do. My prod cap could have an extra 2k probably if I switched to all rockies or something. Again though just too costly for me to rebuild a 350 eco base.

The reason the game is linear in your opinion is you weren't here over those 12 years to see the experiments. I remember when fleets were told to have a Corvette/DE stack to protect your recyclers, but in reality just don't get your recyclers stuck in a sticky situation worked better and saved you credits for more combat units.

Similarly I remember 20 CCs on all bases with FTs/HCs as defenses were best, but slowly that gave way that a single or two DNs on a base were far better defenses.

CRs used to be considered the go to option for base cracking, but the utility of HCS and realization of large FT swarms killed that method.

I can go on and on about alternative methods that have changed over the years ;)

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" (Julius Caesar)
You can be a king or a street sweeper, but everybody dances with the Grim Reaper.
User avatar
Death Smurf
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue 24 Feb, 2009 04:23
Reputation: 42
Guild: BORG - A
SS - B
MOJO (GM) - C

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby Death Smurf » Fri 20 Apr, 2018 09:12

Soldier48 wrote:
Death Smurf wrote:Over the years people have tried the 'alternate' methods you have suggested.

Similarly I remember 20 CCs on all bases with FTs/HCs as defenses were best, but slowly that gave way that a single or two DNs on a base were far better defenses.


After the HC/FT it was the 5 Battleships per base and after that was the DN defence. Initially it was 3 DN... then it was reduced to 2... and after that 1.

Ceti Historian:
> The Ceti Historian
* Has received a R/L death threat about AE (gimme the e-tears!)
jmc92
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon 06 Oct, 2014 02:18
Reputation: 2

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby jmc92 » Sat 21 Apr, 2018 22:55

Dropping in to look at how things are. Not much has changed I see.

To answer you question, I already had tech researched far beyond recommended. It took a long time and didn't really do much for me.
Prings+Pshield combos is a good defense. A base with 4 of those combos and 2 dreads is about the best you can do.
It'll never be enough though if someone is pissed off enough, they're going to take the base no matter what.
Because the game is built off of mathematical calculations, the math will always be the same when approached from different angles.
That's how accurate calculators can be made.
And potentially why many people become bored with AE.

Anywho, just set up on another server and try an alternate method for yourself, and see what you think works best for you.

Gone again. A good artist can't play AE and practice his trade at the same time.
User avatar
Death Smurf
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue 24 Feb, 2009 04:23
Reputation: 42
Guild: BORG - A
SS - B
MOJO (GM) - C

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby Death Smurf » Sat 21 Apr, 2018 23:20

flo3030 wrote:-

&
Soldier48 wrote:-


Here you go. This gives you an idea what Soldier was saying about the development of the various methods..

This is from 2008.

Image

See where we've mentioned about Ion turrets (and the method there), as well as using shielded ships such as HC or BS..

Original source is here

Ceti Historian:
> The Ceti Historian
* Has received a R/L death threat about AE (gimme the e-tears!)
swearengen
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2014 21:00
Reputation: 75

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby swearengen » Sun 22 Apr, 2018 00:08

Its kind of hard to say 1 way is better or worse then another
It comes down to how the player wants to play their account and finding a way that suits them.
% of players usually want to fight and pillage as soon as they can.Then when thats accomplished they move over to the newest server.
Some like to spread out and turtle up on defenses and quietly wait til vast % of players move to new server.
Then they run around and attack bases.
A player simply has to determine how they want thier play expirence to go.

User avatar
REDSHEILD
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue 07 Oct, 2008 20:59
Reputation: 4
Guild: E: Technically SWAGA
N: [*ACE*]
Galaxy: Epsilon

Re: alternative play methods?

Postby REDSHEILD » Tue 24 Apr, 2018 20:23

I've played since early Epsi. Back then fleet specs had gotten fairly formalized, though exact variants of them were up to debate, most notably in my mind the use of CV/DD meat for cruisers. Now, of course, it's known that you get better ratios with just FT/CR and spending the credits you would've spent on CV or DD on more FT/CR, but it took a few years for that to really work out to the general population. At this time FT stacks hadn't really taken off yet either.

Defenses had gotten more trimmed, though. I started in the E70s so, fearing invasion from the rest of the server, lots of guilds rushed prings before hitting level 30. Prior to that it was usually two levels of your two best turrets, and by then most people knew that laser turrets and plasma turrets weren't worth building.

Nowadays the two levels of two turrets rule of thumb seems to still be around, however most guilds stop short of prings, preferring instead that their members work on fleet. Of course part of this is due to lower server populations in general: galaxies and clusters become stratified by a small number of guilds fairly quickly, well before most players get to prings, and so the best way to defend your bases is to have a strong fleet on your guild's blob, securing the galaxy by force. Years ago when servers were large enough that there would be dozens of guilds at or near max member limit galaxies and clusters were a lot more fractured, plus blobs hadn't quite caught on yet, so the threat to bases from roaming mobiles was much higher, versus today where you usually only see the occasional ninja by a fleet just big enough to make the hit on a base in a secured galaxy.

Sad to say the game hasn't changed enough to really allow new playstyles and most players have been around long enough to have figured all the effective ones out, even if they're only good at some of them. If AE still had the player count of the old days then maybe it'd seem less static, but we can't really know.

Every time you make a serious post, god deletes a UC.
Please think of the farmers!

Return to “Help Center”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests