Fluffeh Fennec's Fabulous Frolic in Nova (Past Questions)

[GundamMerc]

I know that some people probably would rather me let them fully discuss each question before posting a new one, and I thought to myself "I probably should". So here you go, a thread for all the previous questions I have asked.

Please put the question you are responding to in the post, for the sake of coherency.

Past Questions: How is King dealing with the loss of Balor in leadership?

If we were to take away the top four guilds, how would you rank the next tier of guilds and why? Also, how do you think a server war would play out between them?

Barring capital fleets, which fleet spec do you think has been most decisive in the blob crashes on this server? Do you think other servers have different fleet specs that are more prominent?

What do you think the next moves of the top guilds will be? Please list out the top 5 guilds, along with your opinions for each.

Who would you say is the most influential guild leader (barring Balor) in Nova currently?

What would you say the most entertaining server war so far was?

With the newest server coming along, what guilds do you think will be most weakened by players heading to Pegasus?

[Wlerin]

Remember though, pure FT/FR into a pure infinite HC stack with roughly equivalent techs and it's a 1:1 ratio. The frigates actually lose in the calc I just ran. Those shields go a long ways. Basically saying, you suicide your frigs + FTs into HCs and your frigates + FTs get zeroed - you're getting a rough ratio

7.5M FR+FT vs 20M naked HCs @comparable credit investment in weapons tech
Total cost of unist destroyed: 13902000 ( Attacker: 7500000 ; Defender: 6402000 )

Shields are irrelevant under the absurd conditions you propose. Any normal combat fleet (i.e. excluding support ships and bombers) will get about 1:1 ratios against a vastly smaller fleet. Infinite frigate+ft would roflstomp any finite number of HC or HC+FT simply because their armour is more cost-effective. Your first illustration is meaningless.

Your second illustration is similarly meaningless both for the above reasons, and because you added 1.5 million extra credits to the Frigate fleet that does almost nothing. I suppose since you're a frigate newb that fault can be forgiven, but it still means your numbers are wrong. Try it again without the fighters. No point bringing fodder on a suicide mission. (It will still be about 1:1, but slightly in favour of the frigates instead. And with decent armour, as well as another frig fleet to finish the HC, it will be profitable.)

Tech almost doesn't matter. That argument plays no part. A frigate spec is rapeable. That's the point. HCs are the strongest unit that is not rapeable. In a blob crash, I'd turn every single one of my inactives into an HC fleet if I could

>Tech doesn't matter
>HCs aren't rapeable.

lolu

One frigs only need missile armor stellar tech they are cheaper then what hc needs
shielding plasma armor warp

so frig fleets will out pace in tech alone,

In practice yes, however his illustration was not a practical one, and technically true, albeit without meaning.

2nd it takes about 3 frigs to kill a single heavy so that's a 240 to 500 ratios that does not sound even to me, even if it took four it would be 320/500

heavies get there true power in the fact they can do damage to almost every ship, and have shields to make them last longer in a blob crash, frigs do not have the stamina to keep up fighting

Three frigs alone wont kill one HC. You need to have more equivalent fleet sizes in order to shoot an HC fleet, and this is assuming it's naked and not having FTs.

Without a major tech disparity, one HC will kill a little over 3 frigs, and that's without fighters. Hence "it takes about 3 frigs to kill a single heavy". If you'd paid attention to the ratios he was using that should have been clear. It's more than that, actually, and eventually the bits of left over damage will add up enough to kill a fourth frig, but it's still less than four. To actual kill one HC you'd need to bring about 5 frigates.

As for fighters, carrying a sizeable number of fighters around, for HC, requires building fleet carriers, and thus both reducing the number of credits invested in the main unit and increasing the profit of anyone able to hit the fleet while it is offline. Frigates can carry significantly more fighters per credit than HC, and so don't need to divert as many credits to carriers, if they build them at all.

As War Machine said, the Heavy Cruisers' main advantage is their ability to shield rape several different units (though by no means as many as other larger ships), and thus if played well (and not ZF'd), an HC fleet won't need to replace as many losses as a FR+FT fleet. Eventually this may allow the HC fleet to pull ahead in size to where attacking it would be suicide for all remaining Frig fleets on the server. That doesn't mean it's invulnerable, it just needs a little softening up, perhaps via HBs or suiciding of naked frigs or destroyers.

[War MachineX]

Remember though, pure FT/FR into a pure infinite HC stack with roughly equivalent techs and it's a 1:1 ratio. The frigates actually lose in the calc I just ran. Those shields go a long ways. Basically saying, you suicide your frigs + FTs into HCs and your frigates + FTs get zeroed - you're getting a rough ratio

7.5M FR+FT vs 20M naked HCs @comparable credit investment in weapons tech
Total cost of unist destroyed: 13902000 ( Attacker: 7500000 ; Defender: 6402000 )

Shields are irrelevant under the absurd conditions you propose. Any normal combat fleet (i.e. excluding support ships and bombers) will get about 1:1 ratios against a vastly smaller fleet. Infinite frigate+ft would roflstomp any finite number of HC or HC+FT simply because their armour is more cost-effective. Your first illustration is meaningless.

Your second illustration is similarly meaningless both for the above reasons, and because you added 1.5 million extra credits to the Frigate fleet that does almost nothing. I suppose since you're a frigate newb that fault can be forgiven, but it still means your numbers are wrong. Try it again without the fighters. No point bringing fodder on a suicide mission. (It will still be about 1:1, but slightly in favour of the frigates instead. And with decent armour, as well as another frig fleet to finish the HC, it will be profitable.)

Tech almost doesn't matter. That argument plays no part. A frigate spec is rapeable. That's the point. HCs are the strongest unit that is not rapeable. In a blob crash, I'd turn every single one of my inactives into an HC fleet if I could

>Tech doesn't matter
>HCs aren't rapeable.

lolu

One frigs only need missile armor stellar tech they are cheaper then what hc needs
shielding plasma armor warp

so frig fleets will out pace in tech alone,

In practice yes, however his illustration was not a practical one, and technically true, albeit without meaning.

2nd it takes about 3 frigs to kill a single heavy so that's a 240 to 500 ratios that does not sound even to me, even if it took four it would be 320/500

heavies get there true power in the fact they can do damage to almost every ship, and have shields to make them last longer in a blob crash, frigs do not have the stamina to keep up fighting

Three frigs alone wont kill one HC. You need to have more equivalent fleet sizes in order to shoot an HC fleet, and this is assuming it's naked and not having FTs.

Without a major tech disparity, one HC will kill a little over 3 frigs, and that's without fighters. Hence "it takes about 3 frigs to kill a single heavy". If you'd paid attention to the ratios he was using that should have been clear. It's more than that, actually, and eventually the bits of left over damage will add up enough to kill a fourth frig, but it's still less than four. To actual kill one HC you'd need to bring about 5 frigates.

As for fighters, carrying a sizeable number of fighters around, for HC, requires building fleet carriers, and thus both reducing the number of credits invested in the main unit and increasing the profit of anyone able to hit the fleet while it is offline. Frigates can carry significantly more fighters per credit than HC, and so don't need to divert as many credits to carriers, if they build them at all.

As War Machine said, the Heavy Cruisers' main advantage is their ability to shield rape several different units (though by no means as many as other larger ships), and thus if played well (and not ZF'd), an HC fleet won't need to replace as many losses as a FR+FT fleet. Eventually this may allow the HC fleet to pull ahead in size to where attacking it would be suicide for all remaining Frig fleets on the server. That doesn't mean it's invulnerable, it just needs a little softening up, perhaps via HBs or suiciding of naked frigs or destroyers.

um... well played.... id rep u but i got a lemon cuz the mods cant read what i wrote correctly

[GundamMerc]

A very astute observation Wlerin. Any veteran of this game who actually pays attention to battle reports over the course of their AE career could tell you that a larger fleet will lose less and kill more efficiently (that term is very important, as there is a difference between killing efficiently, and just killing more) than a smaller fleet against the same opponent. This is the very reason that fighter specs can even work at all. Otherwise fighter specs would just be easy rapes.

[Wlerin]

Well. Infinite fighters would get significantly better than 1:1 ratios against any other fleet (aside from say, bombers). And a fleet of naked destroyers against infinite heavy cruisers would actually fare rather well, all things considered. I may have overstated that particular point. In general though, soon as you start talking about "infinite" anything, you stop having a useful point.


EDIT: Actually suicidal destroyers and frigates are about equal thanks to the difference in weapon tech costs. One more reason to prefer frigates.

[GundamMerc]

Well. Infinite fighters would get significantly better than 1:1 ratios against any other fleet (aside from say, bombers).... I may have overstated that particular point. In general though, soon as you start talking about "infinite" anything, you stop having a useful point.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of anything to do with infinite... so uhm, ok? *confused fennec is confused*

[Wlerin]

Well. Infinite fighters would get significantly better than 1:1 ratios against any other fleet (aside from say, bombers).... I may have overstated that particular point. In general though, soon as you start talking about "infinite" anything, you stop having a useful point.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of anything to do with infinite... so uhm, ok? *confused fennec is confused*

My first point above, in response to Vaters very first "infinite HC" nonsense, was talking about infinite fleet. I made a generalization there that wasn't quite accurate, but making it more accurate is too much work.

[Vaters]

@ Wlerin - You spent a lot of time making a really dumb post. You're missing the big point

The idea is that HCs are stronger inactive than any alternative unit, because they are not rapeable (aside from DS stack). You need an equivalent size CR or FR fleet to take one down, plus a fighterdropper. Making a large number of enemy HC stacks a costly and time consuming investment to kill. Killing HC fleets is at best a 1:2 ratio (factoring in the 1:1 from the drop), and that's soaking up a lot of your active large frigate and cruiser mobiles, as well as your fighters. They are great damage sinks.

You know what isn't a damage sink? Any fleet CR and below. They are just cap stack swatted. Cap stacks are simple kills too, they are just rammed with as many (HC or BS) + FT shield as possible.

The post that tech doesn't matter is related to the idea that you gain an advantage as a frigate fleet because your techs are comparatively cheaper. That doesn't change anything - it's about total credit investment in tech, which just comes down to tech cap. You are not going to invest less credits in tech because your tech is cheaper. You have your queues running at full blast. You invest the same. Because of the way techs scale up, all a cheaper tech gets you is a couple added levels of attack power.

But does that confer any advantage? A cheaper tech means a few extra levels of attack power, which is factored in to the overall equilibrium all the different units keep each other in - all units balance each other and have a place in the game. The cheaper tech is factored in to their overall strength. It means nothing, its an advantage that's already assumed when we compare different units - we just only look at total strength at relatively equal investment in weapons tech - it's already factored in.

NOTE
The idea of infinite simply refers to any fleet you cannot one shot, that completely zeroes your fleet. The idea is not that you have a fleet that is actually infinite, but a 500K HC fleet is infinite to a 10K fighter fleet. THATS the point. It's the idea of relative infinity.

[Wlerin]

@ Wlerin - You spent a lot of time making a really dumb post. You're missing the big point

The idea is that HCs are stronger inactive than any alternative unit, because they are not rapeable (aside from DS stack). You need an equivalent size CR or FR fleet to take one down, plus a fighterdropper. Making a large number of enemy HC stacks a costly and time consuming investment to kill.

You might have a point... if this were true. But no levi stack worth its salt is going to have trouble raping your typical HC fleet. And guess what? Because their power/armour ratio is so low compared to smaller ships, they can be raped for an even greater profit. You have to significantly push plasma tech, which does little to help shield rapes, in order to be unrapeable by Levis.

The idea of infinite simply refers to any fleet you cannot one shot, that completely zeroes your fleet. The idea is not that you have a fleet that is actually infinite, but a 500K HC fleet is infinite to a 10K fighter fleet. THATS the point. It's the idea of relative infinity.

Except that if it's only relatively infinite it can still be worn down by individual, positive-ratio attacks. You only need a few (3-4) 6 mil Frig fleets to derb your 20 mil HC for a profit, and only the fourth would need fighters.



EDIT: There's also the arms race factor. If everyone built HC from the start, instead of having their fleets magically converted on the blob (never going to happen), then people would actually build death stars for once. And then other players would build BS/IF, and then others would build FR and FT, and then others would build DN and, well, you already have HC, but you get my point.

[Vaters]

So your arguement, let me get this straight... is that levis effectively rape HC stacks?

vig.vg/AE/aeBattleCalc.php?aT=Arm:28,La ... &dS=LE:200

HC vs Levi (relatively infinite levis) is a 1:2 ratio... that your definition of a rape? Because I thought we were talking about HCs being damage sinks, and at best, being killed at a 1:2 ratio... hmm, I remember mentioning that ohh... three or four times

If (HC stack = levi stack) for size, levi stack loses on ratio. If [(HC stack + FT shield) vs Levi stack] ===> levi stack loses 1:2


So it's the same situation as with frigates. Exact same. Which leads back to my earlier point. HCs are DAMAGE SINKS. What part of using a battle calc + grasping well laid out points hurts you so much Wlerin?

EDIT: This fun quote:

Because their power/armour ratio is so low compared to smaller ships, they can be raped for an even greater profit.

LOLOLOLOLOL
So HCs can be raped for EVEN GREATER PROFIT than the smaller ships that don't break shields?

lolu

edits 2 and 3 trying to figure out URL business.

[Vaters]

The idea of infinite simply refers to any fleet you cannot one shot, that completely zeroes your fleet. The idea is not that you have a fleet that is actually infinite, but a 500K HC fleet is infinite to a 10K fighter fleet. THATS the point. It's the idea of relative infinity.

Except that if it's only relatively infinite it can still be worn down by individual, positive-ratio attacks. You only need a few (3-4) 6 mil Frig fleets to derb your 20 mil HC for a profit, and only the fourth would need fighters.

And how exactly are you going to do that in a timely manner during a blob crash, and at what overall ratio?

Oh, yeah. Around 1:2 (less in this situation), plus the FRs have to dump their FTs first. Also time sink. Your clutching at straws.

PS your edit - don't edit after I post, just make a new post

[Wlerin]

It only takes a few levels of disparity between shielding and plasma to completely change that ratio, and Leviathan players (especially in an HC heavy server) have a reason to push shielding. Unless an HC player is intentionally focused on killing Levis, he does not have an equivalent reason to push Plasma, as shielding and armour help more for shield rape.

As I said:

But no levi stack worth its salt is going to have trouble raping your typical HC fleet.

PS your edit - don't edit after I post, just make a new post

No. I started the edit before your post anyway, and there's no way to tell if you've made a new one from the edit screen.

And how exactly are you going to do that in a timely manner during a blob crash, and at what overall ratio?

Oh, yeah. Around 1:2 (less in this situation), plus the FRs have to dump their FTs first. Also time sink. Your clutching at straws.

We're talking about turning inactives into HCs. Where does time come into it? They're not going anywhere.

[Vaters]

The fleets I would magically turn into HC spec are inactive. The other half of the blob is not. You are still getting shot at here. Unless you've already won the active crash and are then cleaning up, in which case time sink plays no role, but it is still true that it isn't at a good ratio. You can wear down a relatively infinite fleet, the idea was in reference to one hit. But this still doesn't happen at a good ratio. Unless you like sub 1:2 ratios...

[Vaters]

Also, your idea that HC stackers don't push their techs is just flat out wrong. They have as much reason to push their techs as everyone else - better ratios. Also, as the game progresses and the price from one level of tech to the next increases, the idea that a few levels of disparity will exist is a little out of whack. Your idea is only functional in EXTREME tech disparity during early server and if the opposing fleet is extremely small, and EVEN THEN is isn't great.

[Wlerin]

Also, your idea that HC stackers don't push their techs is just flat out wrong. They have as much reason to push their techs as everyone else - better ratios. Also, as the game progresses and the price from one level of tech to the next increases, the idea that a few levels of disparity will exist is a little out of whack. Your idea is only functional in EXTREME tech disparity during early server and if the opposing fleet is extremely small, and EVEN THEN is isn't great.

Oh please, tell me again how every player in your guild is as much of a fed techwhore as your levi stacks.

The fleets I would magically turn into HC spec are inactive. The other half of the blob is not. You are still getting shot at here. Unless you've already won the active crash and are then cleaning up, in which case time sink plays no role, but it is still true that it isn't at a good ratio. You can wear down a relatively infinite fleet, the idea was in reference to one hit. But this still doesn't happen at a good ratio. Unless you like sub 1:2 ratios...

It's not the best ratio, sure, but it's still profit, especially in that late game where you think no tech disparity will exist.


EDIT: While we're in the middle of this thought experiment, what would happen if, instead of HC, you converted all those inactive fleets to fighters? No carriers, just the credit equivalent in raw fighters.