Admirals

This is where the best suggestions are moved to, so discussion can carry on with moderation and be more easily read by the volunteers and development team.

Moderator: Support Moderators

Forum rules
Opening new topics in this forum is not possible, you may only reply to existing topics.

Only users with 50 or more posts can reply to topics.

This forum is moderated, so any posts will have to be approved by a moderator before being published.
Event Horizon
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 20:03
Reputation: 10
Guild: [╰▲╯] Ævikings
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Admirals

Postby Event Horizon » Fri 27 May, 2011 12:39

I think this is a good proposal. The main reason I like it is because of the tactics points. It fits well with the way people play the game and allows further specialization within guilds so different players can fill different roles. It's a system that would have room for expansion down the road.

A couple questions:

1. If the player who builds the main jumpgate(s) for a guild puts tactics points into further boosting jumpgates does that mean all bases have their defenses reduced? Or just bases with jumpgates on them? Or just the one specific base with the main jumpgate?

2. In the table you have at the bottom of the OP I don't understand what the power bonus is for the Fleet Headquarters. The FH has no actual power except to reduce the chance of a commander getting killed. Or is there another bonus that this is referring to that you didn't mention or I missed?

User avatar
Winchester
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 17659
Joined: Tue 24 Mar, 2009 00:44
Reputation: 763
Location: The World Wide Cesspool

Re: Admirals

Postby Winchester » Sun 29 May, 2011 08:14

Event Horizon wrote:I think this is a good proposal. The main reason I like it is because of the tactics points. It fits well with the way people play the game and allows further specialization within guilds so different players can fill different roles. It's a system that would have room for expansion down the road.

A couple questions:

1. If the player who builds the main jumpgate(s) for a guild puts tactics points into further boosting jumpgates does that mean all bases have their defenses reduced? Or just bases with jumpgates on them? Or just the one specific base with the main jumpgate?


The bonuses and reductions apply to every base with a jumpgate that the player owns.

2. In the table you have at the bottom of the OP I don't understand what the power bonus is for the Fleet Headquarters. The FH has no actual power except to reduce the chance of a commander getting killed. Or is there another bonus that this is referring to that you didn't mention or I missed?


Sorry, that was a mistake - a holdover from the original concept, which included a CC-like bonus attached to the FH.

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things."
KaHaR
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 07:21
Reputation: 22

Re: Admirals

Postby KaHaR » Sat 18 Jun, 2011 01:03

Ribbentrop wrote:...removed...
Tactics
Bonuses specified are multiplied by the number of points placed into them.

    ...removed
  • Point-Defense Drills: Reduces bleedthrough damage taken by 5%, but increases non-bleedthrough damage taken by 1%
    ...removed

...removed...
How is bleedthrough damage affected?

I know that this will come up, so allow me to explain. For Tactics such as Point-Defense Drills, you take the bleedthrough damage of any given unit, and decrease it by 5% per level of that tactic. So, a fighter at laser 30 does 0.05 damage; at soft cap, PDD will reduce that to 0.025 damage. Alternatively, any unit with damage > shields of your unit will have its damage increased by 1%. A cruiser at plasma 25 does 54 damage; at soft cap, PDD will increase that to 59.4 damage.

For Linked Targeting Data, the bleedthrough damage of your units goes up; our fighter at laser 30 does 0.05 damage normally, but at soft cap LTD it does 0.06 damage against fleet, and 0.025 damage against defenses.

Won’t Point-Defense Drills make levi stackers overpowered?

This tactic does not change the levi stacker’s role, at all. It cannot take on HCs. The only benefit is that it will take lower losses in pure shield raping fights, and will take lower losses against ion bombers/frigates. The flip side, of course, is that it will take much higher losses against HC, FC, BS, etc. Whereas now, a levi stacker can take on smaller numbers of HC/FC and eat the losses, it will be harder to do so. Consider the fact that, at shielding 25 and armour 35 for the levi and plasma 25 for the HC, it takes 1,009 heavy cruisers to kill a single leviathan. At soft capped PDD, it will only take 631 HC to kill a single leviathan. Ergo, leviathans will be taking double losses against heavy cruisers, and will fair about the same against FCs. The result is that, while it is still beneficial to the shield rapist, they must be much choosier about their targets.

...removed...


Your wording or your math is wrong here.

Point-Defense Drills--Reduces bleed through damage taken by 5%, but increases non-bleed through damage taken by 1%
Example:

Dreadnought with 48 shields, Cruiser with 60 power, and 1 tactical point given to Point-Defense Drills

Normal bleed through damage = .01*48 = 0.48
Non-bleed through damage = 60-48 = 12
Total normal damage: 12+0.48 = 12.48

5% decrease in bleed through = (.01*48)*(1-.05) = 0.456
1% increase in non-bleed through damage = (60-48)*(1 + .01) = 12.12
Total Point-Defense Drills damage = 12.12+0.456 = 12.576

Your numbers
1% increase in power: 60*(1+.01) = 60.6
5% decrease in bleed through = (.01*48)*(1-.05) = 0.456
Non-bleed through damage = 60.6-48 = 12.6
Total Point-Defense Drills damage = 12.6+0.456 = 13.056

If you want to continue to use your numbers, you should change the wording to something like "but if the opponent's unit's power is greater than your unit's shield, the opponent's unit's power is increased by 1%".

This seems like it would cause a dramatic increase in the number of operations required to perform battles (something I believe Wizard said he does not want to do). You would increase the number of comparisons, additions, and multiplications by a factor of at least n*m (n being number of units in the attacker fleet and m being the number of units in the defender fleet); even more if both parties are using this Admiral and even more if both parties are using multiple tactics skills.

<alcibiades> kahar is a good forum poster because nobody can argue with him
<alcibiades> all of your posts blow away everyone in ae so well nobody can understand them
User avatar
CHERUB
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat 16 Jan, 2010 05:59
Reputation: 18
Guild: [».:.«] § H A D Ø W §
Galaxy: Beta
Location: The WorldWide Banana Convention
Contact:

Re: Admirals

Postby CHERUB » Sat 18 Jun, 2011 21:03

KaHaR wrote:This seems like it would cause a dramatic increase in the number of operations required to perform battles (something I believe Wizard said he does not want to do). You would increase the number of comparisons, additions, and multiplications by a factor of at least n*m (n being number of units in the attacker fleet and m being the number of units in the defender fleet); even more if both parties are using this Admiral and even more if both parties are using multiple tactics skills.


If by this you mean server calculations (just to make sure there is no confusion), then this seems to me like it would be a moot point just because ANY addition to ANY aspect of the game will require increases in server calculations. This may be a more concentrated increase, but then again, Ribbentrop's AE-sanctioned database thread is in the FR Workshop too. And that would require massive increases in server calculations. At this point, unless there is some word from Wizard that this would cripple the servers, then I would say that that should not be a limiting factor.

» The Shadow is vast .:. it eclipses your Sun «

Stare not into the abyss, for the abyss stares also into you.
KaHaR
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 07:21
Reputation: 22

Re: Admirals

Postby KaHaR » Mon 20 Jun, 2011 19:11

CHERUB wrote:
KaHaR wrote:This seems like it would cause a dramatic increase in the number of operations required to perform battles (something I believe Wizard said he does not want to do). You would increase the number of comparisons, additions, and multiplications by a factor of at least n*m (n being number of units in the attacker fleet and m being the number of units in the defender fleet); even more if both parties are using this Admiral and even more if both parties are using multiple tactics skills.


If by this you mean server calculations (just to make sure there is no confusion), then this seems to me like it would be a moot point just because ANY addition to ANY aspect of the game will require increases in server calculations. This may be a more concentrated increase, but then again, Ribbentrop's AE-sanctioned database thread is in the FR Workshop too. And that would require massive increases in server calculations. At this point, unless there is some word from Wizard that this would cripple the servers, then I would say that that should not be a limiting factor.


ribbentrop wrote:It's straight from the horse's mouth. Blob crashes already suffer from horrendous lag from the number of simultaneous combats and repeated page loads. When you have ~100-250 battles happening simultaneously at the click of a button, that lag jumps tremendously. There's already huge lag from a few dozen attacks happening inside the space of a few dozen seconds, so when you add upwards of 250 combat calculations dropping simultaneously, the lag skyrockets. That's basic sense here, and has been stated specifically by Wizard. Wizard has refused to add any anti-blob features that seriously increase lag.


The emphasis is my addition.

Database operations are generally on the order of n or lower since they're mainly just inserting, removing, or searching.

Note that this will effectively take an order n^2 algorithm and make it on the order of n^3.

Code: Select all

for attackUnit in attackerUnits
   for defensiveUnit in defensiveUnits

versus

Code: Select all

for attackUnit in attackerUnits
   for defensiveUnit in defensiveUnits
      for attackAdmiralSkill in attackAdmiralOffensiveSkills

<alcibiades> kahar is a good forum poster because nobody can argue with him

<alcibiades> all of your posts blow away everyone in ae so well nobody can understand them
Ilshur
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu 09 Apr, 2009 15:05
Reputation: 6
Guild: The original [DREAM]
Galaxy: Ceti
Location: America
Contact:

Re: Admirals

Postby Ilshur » Sat 09 Jul, 2011 00:28

I enjoy the spirit and thoroughness of this FR, but i feel that the technical apparatus and functioning is faulty. This is essentially the Specialization post, reduxed. I take specific issue with the changes in Bleedthrough and Armor units.


Why must there be a negative effect? The nature of a new feature should not be regressive, and yet this FR would add regressive elements to the Game that the player consciously chooses because of the perceived benenifit on the other side of the coin. The decision shouldn't be framed this way.

In the current mechanics of the game, specialization exists in the choice of technologies researched and units produced, at the opportunity cost of not researching and producing other units which might in some instance be more useful than the ones you decided to buy. In current game mechanics, the only downside of gamechoice is opportunity cost. If this FR was enacted, there would be new regressive measures that would enter the calculation. The purpose that these regressive measures serve is to add exposure to players who elect to be more specified[u]. This is bad. Not only is it bad in the sense that Regressive measures for their own sake are retarded, but its bad because it complicates player choice, and increases the vulnerability of gameplayers.

Of course 'it is the players choice,' But the spirit of a FR should not be to add a 'hard choice' into the game. Look at The Capitol, Tachyon, Command Centers - the game added features that [u]everyone
would want to use, because it would increase their gameplay. Granted, in specific instances, especially with tachyon, they could use these features in their own unique way, but it addressed a fundamental problem in later servers ( you could build more than 16 research bases and combine bases capacities to finish big researched in a more expedited fashion.

Yes, a few players might elect to specialize in the fashion that you have articulated, but i know for a fact that others would not engage in 'increasing their potency in a narrow set of instances at the expense of reducing their effectiveness in another set of instances.


This is particularly problematic for players on earlier servers who have already 'sunk' many years and tremendous emotional capitol into their specificity.


Instead, the proposition should be framed as a simple Benefit. Why could the FR just do away with the negative penalty and have a smaller benefit? I think if such an outlook was taken in redesigning the technical aspect of this FR, it would be brilliant.

This game is boring and needs to evolve.
User avatar
Rayy
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2841
Joined: Fri 23 Jul, 2010 07:39
Reputation: 72
Guild: USSV
Galaxy: Lyra

Re: Admirals

Postby Rayy » Sat 09 Jul, 2011 22:16

Otherwise it exists for the sole purpose to boost numbers and it makes you think about what you want to do with your fleet. Additionally you need to learn to fleet spec as judging by your post you probably rainbow quite a bit.

cactuschewer wrote:Traps r good
User avatar
CHERUB
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat 16 Jan, 2010 05:59
Reputation: 18
Guild: [».:.«] § H A D Ø W §
Galaxy: Beta
Location: The WorldWide Banana Convention
Contact:

Re: Admirals

Postby CHERUB » Sun 10 Jul, 2011 05:33

In essence, the entire post can be condensed down to the very last sentence, so I shall just answer that:

Ilshur wrote:Instead, the proposition should be framed as a simple Benefit. Why could the FR just do away with the negative penalty and have a smaller benefit? I think if such an outlook was taken in redesigning the technical aspect of this FR, it would be brilliant.


To be succinct, because its not worth it. Things like tachyon were introduced becuase there was already a flaw in game mechanics. Research took far too long, hence, tachyon was added without a drawback becuase there was still a suitable soft cap, among other reasons that I will not go into here.

If we ax the "penalty" and mitigate the benefits, it won't be worth it to the players to invest in this becuase the benefits will be too small. Now, that being said, this is also the type of feature that NEEDS a drawback. This is more on the order of a fleet feature. Fleet has drawbacks, like the fact that Cruisers can take out prings and stuff for better ratios than most things, yet are incredibly vulnerable to Levi attack, or the fact that levis are very useful and get great ratios but are mind numbingly slow. As with fleet, these will give big benefits, but will also have a measure of risk with them. That is how it should be.

» The Shadow is vast .:. it eclipses your Sun «

Stare not into the abyss, for the abyss stares also into you.
Ilshur
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu 09 Apr, 2009 15:05
Reputation: 6
Guild: The original [DREAM]
Galaxy: Ceti
Location: America
Contact:

Re: Admirals

Postby Ilshur » Wed 13 Jul, 2011 01:53

Rayy wrote:Otherwise it exists for the sole purpose to boost numbers and it makes you think about what you want to do with your fleet. Additionally you need to learn to fleet spec as judging by your post you probably rainbow quite a bit.


The purpose boosts numbers at the single expense of credits. Factoring in deficits changes the entire dynamic of gameplay much more fundamentally than a single small bonus to a single type of weapon or single unit.

Hard-linking negatives to positives is regressive to the game as a culture, and will have an impact upon the decision theory. Furthermore, it goes against virtually all past features that have been added. Players want specialization - this is a request that is generally echoed by many in FR and meets with somewhat static but more or less positive feedback from the developers, i get this. But what will turn off players is a bait and switch by turning their fighters into weak/cheap bombers by trading power for armor, or any such analog applied to any unit or technology where there is a positive applied at the price of a benefit.

Players cost-benifit analysis should end at the price in simple terms of credit cost. Adding what i have termed 'increased exposure' - either the decrease in effectiveness of a certian fleet speciality against another type of fleet or unit, or the downright added risk of being made more profitable, either through increased profitability in the depth of a single 'perfect shot' (i.e. leviathans shieldraping cruisers) or the new game feature expanding the threats that you face (i.e. making dreadnoughts particularly immune to frigates, or something similar).

This kind of gaming theory is fun to think about and takes place in some sense in a variety of business models, but it has no place in a game that is fundamentally Rocks Papers Scissors (except with varying degrees of victory, and more like 16 options of implement).

Adding specialization is great, but make it just that, don't go making it an outrageous tradeoff.

This game is boring and needs to evolve.
User avatar
CHERUB
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat 16 Jan, 2010 05:59
Reputation: 18
Guild: [».:.«] § H A D Ø W §
Galaxy: Beta
Location: The WorldWide Banana Convention
Contact:

Re: Admirals

Postby CHERUB » Tue 19 Jul, 2011 01:44

If you want a great benefit, how do you propose to "pay" for it. We could make it outrageously expensive so no one will buy it, but then what is the point of adding it in the first place? We could make it far less powerful and keep the cost static, but what is the point of adding it in the first place if it doesn't do anything?

Show me any new idea at all that is a viable option for game improvement that does not have a drawback to it.

Having said that, you bring up the old 'rock paper scissors' adage. How does this feature change this statement:

Ilshur wrote:This kind of gaming theory is fun to think about and takes place in some sense in a variety of business models, but it has no place in a game that is fundamentally Rocks Papers Scissors (except with varying degrees of victory, and more like 16 options of implement).

The simple answer is: it doesn't. You say yourself that the game has "varying degrees of victory," yes? Well, this is simply adding two more variables to said victory. We add an attacking benefit that increases "victory" and we add a counterattack "victory." Thus, the feature absolutely has a place within the current game structure as it is not a break from tradition, merely an extension of it.

» The Shadow is vast .:. it eclipses your Sun «

Stare not into the abyss, for the abyss stares also into you.
Ilshur
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu 09 Apr, 2009 15:05
Reputation: 6
Guild: The original [DREAM]
Galaxy: Ceti
Location: America
Contact:

Re: Admirals

Postby Ilshur » Fri 22 Jul, 2011 04:48

CHERUB wrote:If you want a great benefit, how do you propose to "pay" for it.

You pay for it by putting a simple number on it, this is the price in terms of game credits. Very simple, no higher maths involved to factor in the negatives.
CHERUB wrote: We could make it outrageously expensive so no one will buy it, but then what is the point of adding it in the first place?
No, you're right. The capitol was originally 10,000,000 credits but they decided taht since no one would build it they'd make it only cost 10,000. It should be cheaper so everyone can afford it in the beginning.
CHERUB wrote: We could make it far less powerful and keep the cost static, but what is the point of adding it in the first place if it doesn't do anything?

Are you asking if we should put a feature in place that costs something but doesnt give ANYTHING? I think what you mean is "Why put it in the game at all if everyone will be able to afford it in the beginning and further utilizationa nd employ of said feature will only be possible with continued play and strategic considered investment into X?" - to which i say, yes.
CHERUB wrote:
Show me any new idea at all that is a viable option for game improvement that does not have a drawback to it.

Wikipedia search "opportunity cost."
Capitols were the first feature to incur a gamecost in addition to opportunity cost, in that if your capitol is occ'd you get docked 15% credits. having your base occ'd costs you in every capacity, but no other game cost as a longterm permanant decision COSTS ANYTHING BUT THE CREDITS INVESTED. Nothing. The aformentioned costs of being occupied are part of the game and not really being debated here.
CHERUB wrote:Having said that, you bring up the old 'rock paper scissors' adage. How does this feature change this statement:

Ilshur wrote:This kind of gaming theory is fun to think about and takes place in some sense in a variety of business models, but it has no place in a game that is fundamentally Rocks Papers Scissors (except with varying degrees of victory, and more like 16 options of implement).


The simple answer is: it doesn't. You say yourself that the game has "varying degrees of victory," yes? Well, this is simply adding two more variables to said victory. We add an attacking benefit that increases "victory" and we add a counterattack "victory." Thus, the feature absolutely has a place within the current game structure as it is not a break from tradition, merely an extension of it.


No. I will move slowly through this, and perhaps i need to amend or even redact that past statement because it is ambiguous. This FR, this specialization - which is fundamentally identical to Ribbens past specialization FR's - moves "3 steps forward" in regard to increased potential to make an optimal play (i.e. fighter oneshot, shieldrape oneshot, etc), at the cost of "2 steps backward" in regard to exposure to an oppositions 'optimal shot' against you.

This use of 3 to 2 is a deliberate decision, based on my initial analysis of the figures it seems to add a longterm benefit, but my gut feeling is that it is really 1:1 and not 3:2 in its benifit, but i care neither to perform the math needed to make this distinction nor do i wish to get bogged down into that level of the analysis.

Instead, what i would propose is a simple "1 step forward" with no steps backwardin other departments. Relatively, steps backward for your own play will occur when OTHER PLAYS TAKE STEPS FORWARD, but this is the same system in which technology research occurs. Is this clear? I mean is this specific point, the distinction with how THIS FR's SYSTEM OF GAIN IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT GAME.

Its subtle, and perhaps it will take further iterations of my explanation to explain, but i am taking the time to identify, outline, and argue in this because i feel it is so important.


With a simple 1 step forward, where there is a smaller bonus applied, initially at a cheap price - everyone will get level1, nearly everyone will get the first several levels, and the developed/active/willing will take it into double digits of development. This is the way current technology occurs, and this is the way all systems of gain that are analagous to technology should be outlined, framed, proposed, introduced, posited, etc in ANY FR that proposes incremental gain.

The only detractors in the current system are cost, specifically opportunity cost (all the fleet you could build for want of those tens of millions of credits dumped into tech :((( )




*analogy*
This FR wants to make Laser technology, for every level, reduce plasma technologies effect on weapons by 3%.

instead, why not just leave Laser the way Laser currently is, affecting only laser, and leaving the negatives to the relativity incurred by NOT researching plasma.
/*analogy*

Please, somebody, anybody, am i talking at a wall or does ANY of this make sense?

This game is boring and needs to evolve.
User avatar
CHERUB
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat 16 Jan, 2010 05:59
Reputation: 18
Guild: [».:.«] § H A D Ø W §
Galaxy: Beta
Location: The WorldWide Banana Convention
Contact:

Re: Admirals

Postby CHERUB » Fri 22 Jul, 2011 18:41

I could quote all of that again, and make a reply that is long enough to dissuade me from writing it. I did it anyway, but I don't want to post it unless requested for some reason.

It seems to me that your entire beef with this idea all boils down to the fact that you don't want any "risk" associated with it. You want a relatively smaller benefit but with no drawbacks, yes?
The problem with that is quite simply this: will anyone use it?
And the answer - for the most part - is no, becuase a small but costly benefit isn't what people look for in any feature, except of course their chosen fleet specialization tech. An example, and another reason why I don't think just making a small increase would work:

If you gave me a small increase in laser, I would be going "great!" and using the small increase in laser... but only becuase I spend just shy of 5 mil for my next laser, and it will be over 7 mil at some point in the future. But what does that give me? An increase in laser for the sake of an increase in laser. It doesn't add anything to the game, just more laser, more armour, whatever else you feel inspired to increase with said commander.

This idea would ultimately fail for the same reason 65% of all the ideas that come through the virtual gas chamber that is the FR forum. It would just be 'X for the sake of X = No.'
The drawbacks add something to game strategy. They add an element of the game that wasn't there before (except in a limited sense, with bases and Capitals, as you rightly said).
Do you understand where I'm coming from here? The drawbacks aren't just a gateway to increased beneficial possibilities, but they are an integral part of the feature as well. The drawbacks are part of the thing that separates this idea from those ideas that never get more than 1 page in before they get locked.

» The Shadow is vast .:. it eclipses your Sun «

Stare not into the abyss, for the abyss stares also into you.
User avatar
Winchester
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 17659
Joined: Tue 24 Mar, 2009 00:44
Reputation: 763
Location: The World Wide Cesspool

Re: Admirals

Postby Winchester » Thu 04 Aug, 2011 20:31

Ilshur wrote:Why must there be a negative effect? The nature of a new feature should not be regressive, and yet this FR would add regressive elements to the Game that the player consciously chooses because of the perceived benenifit on the other side of the coin. The decision shouldn't be framed this way.


There's a negative effect because that's the only way to achieve specialization, instead of a boost for the sake of a boost. Look at all of the options, and consider them without the negative aspects. You reduce bleedthrough taken, making shield rapists more effective against their primary targets. You increase the bleedthrough dealt by fighters, making them even more effective against just about everything. You make frigates more effective against anything with shields. Etc, etc. All that it does is artificially inflate the bonuses of things in the game without actually changing tactics. Every unit essentially turns into a half-bomber by that point, with no change in tactics. That's not beneficial to the game, because it's a boost for the sake of a boost. By adding in negatives you make people actually think about what they're doing, and you give people the option to change their tactics - even if it's just ever so slightly. That's what this game needs - not more power for the sake of more power.

In the current mechanics of the game, specialization exists in the choice of technologies researched and units produced, at the opportunity cost of not researching and producing other units which might in some instance be more useful than the ones you decided to buy. In current game mechanics, the only downside of gamechoice is opportunity cost. If this FR was enacted, there would be new regressive measures that would enter the calculation. The purpose that these regressive measures serve is to add exposure to players who elect to be more specified[u]. This is bad. Not only is it bad in the sense that Regressive measures for their own sake are retarded, but its bad because it complicates player choice, and increases the vulnerability of gameplayers.


No, in current game mechanics the downside is in the tactics involved - frigates can't effectively take out fighter swarms, but they can absolutely rape heavy cruisers. With this change, fighters become even more effective at taking down mixed fleets and carriers, but they're no longer quite as effective at taking down bases. That's the trade, and that already exists in the game. The negatives aren't spelled out in the stats right now because they don't need to be - the negatives exist in the interaction of units. Because that already exists, this idea cannot introduce or change such a thing directly, as it doesn't add a new unit. Instead, it follows the existing mode by changing the dynamics of which units are best against which units. If you had nothing but a positive boost, then the dynamics wouldn't change, but would merely escalate - X becomes more effective against Y, while Y becomes more effective against Z, and Z becomes more effective against X. It becomes rock, paper, scissors with bigger hands. By introducing direct negatives, you maintain the rock, paper, scissors schema while altering the specifics of the interactions, making it a revitalization of the existing positive and negative tactical options within the game.

Of course 'it is the players choice,' But the spirit of a FR should not be to add a 'hard choice' into the game. Look at The Capitol, Tachyon, Command Centers - the game added features that [u]everyone would want to use, because it would increase their gameplay. Granted, in specific instances, especially with tachyon, they could use these features in their own unique way, but it addressed a fundamental problem in later servers ( you could build more than 16 research bases and combine bases capacities to finish big researched in a more expedited fashion.


And this adds something that everyone would want to use, because everyone has fleet and/or jumpgates. This idea would also increase their gameplay, because it allows them to be even more effective in a given role, meaning more profit, more experience, and more fun. This also works to your stated goal of increasing guild coordination, by the way - the more specialized you are, the more you need to rely on friends to help cover each other's weaknesses. So, this idea is one that you must support if you want to remain consistent in your stances.

Yes, a few players might elect to specialize in the fashion that you have articulated, but i know for a fact that others would not engage in 'increasing their potency in a narrow set of instances at the expense of reducing their effectiveness in another set of instances.


At which point they could use one of the thoughtfully added bonuses that doesn't have an attached negative element - something that you appear to have overlooked.

This is particularly problematic for players on earlier servers who have already 'sunk' many years and tremendous emotional capitol into their specificity.


There is a bonus that applies to every single fleet spec in existence, and a bonus that at the very least applies to jumpgates. Likewise, the non-fleet bonuses - such as increased commander effectiveness - means that you don't need to use any tactics points to take advantage of this idea. Your problems with it are non-issues.

Instead, the proposition should be framed as a simple Benefit. Why could the FR just do away with the negative penalty and have a smaller benefit? I think if such an outlook was taken in redesigning the technical aspect of this FR, it would be brilliant.


It is a simple benefit. The benefit is that you become more effective at X. Also, if you reduce the bonuses, it becomes so small that it isn't worth the cost.

Your problems are not problems. QED.

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things."
User avatar
The_Desert_Fox
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed 03 Mar, 2010 06:28
Reputation: 5
Guild: 13th AA Heiho WMD CFF FTW RED

Re: Admirals

Postby The_Desert_Fox » Wed 18 Jan, 2012 21:06

just read it. will have to re read it.

but one thing i thought of to suggest:

change "public view of players Tactics via an extra tab in the profile", to only visible on players Headquarters. meaning, someone has to be in view of your Headquarters to find that info out.

you can not see a list of players Commanders lvls, yet you can visit all their bases and compile a list of a commanders lvls. same for most of a players metrics.

if you want to know what Tactics the Admiral Bonuses are invested in, you have to scout the player's Headquarters.

this will have an effect of stimulateing players to better protect their Headquarters.
to quote you
gives people more incentive to find and occupy headquarters.

Dominion wrote:And TDF made a lot of DS's that he sent on thousand hour trips while claiming to be jesus at AE.
User avatar
Ron Burgandy
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 14:11
Reputation: 12
Guild: Ceti:ASG
Galaxy: Ceti

Re: Admirals

Postby Ron Burgandy » Thu 19 Jan, 2012 03:13

Just a suggestion, instead of introducing a new structure why not make a requirement of say 25 CCs?

Again just a suggestion to avoid introducing a new structure

...lol plus why should i tell you?? your the one who wants to jump in and bite the lion on the nuts
I may not be active, but I am watching ... Always watching :twisted:

Return to “FR Workshop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest