Fleet combat

[captainjf]

but if you win the battle, you've obiously taken less damage than your opponent.

[TNTTony]

But if you are fighting someone with a reasonable main (ie. similar abs, acc etc) then you both will be damaged similarly. Also, the fact that your own ships gets damage AND is out of commission, means there is no point in attacking people.

[Renshaak]

if u cant destroy the ships it would be pointless..

you see if the defender takes damage then the attacker must also take damage aswell... increasing the cost of pvp dramatically. i think its a horrible idea ren.

"pointless" and "horrible" - a bit of hyperbole methinks.

If you're going to attack my suggestion, attack what I suggested ;)  My suggestion is not that all damage represented by the attack value of the ships carry a cost with it (Att * Acc = cost to opponent).  My suggestion was that under the current rules that would indicate a ship was destroyed (Att * Acc > defense + HP * 1 / (1 - Shield)).  So when the current rules would indicate the ship is destroyed, it may instead be damaged and taken out of commission.  This actually helps the PvPer if he chose poorly in his attack

and could damaged ships be used for pve? if so you would get people that just dont bother defending there ships, if they cant be destroyed what would be the point if they still work for pve

No.  Until the price to fix the ship was paid, the ship would not be combat-ready.

[TNTTony]

So as long as the ship is not "destroyed" (in the current system) there is no damage to the ship at all after combat?

[Spayed]

meh, reguardless of my opinion of it... i see no reason for it to be implemented..

[Renshaak]

So as long as the ship is not "destroyed" (in the current system) there is no damage to the ship at all after combat?

Correct.  I do see the more realistic point being that some damage happen during almost any combat, but from the mechanics of the game, as Spayed did point out the more realistic version could lead to too much of a detriment to PvP.

[Renshaak]

meh, reguardless of my opinion of it... i see no reason for it to be implemented..

I just need to clarify--do you see no value in the game or in your personal goals for how to play?

[Spayed]

im not sure if i understand what you mean by that ren?

[Renshaak]

That's what can happen when I post while sleepy.

I think less obliteration will keep more players interested in the game and possibly make PvP more heated by reducing the chance that your target will be knocked out of your range for the foreseeable future in one attack.

I'm trying to figure out whether you simply don't believe the above could be plausible impacts of this kidn of change or if your dislike of the proposal is more based on what you want to happen to your victims.

[Spayed]

if they dont want 2 be obliterated then they wont come near me... and anyone that can get near my rank should be able 2 defend themselfs or they wont b there long..

well ren.. simply put i attack to damage.. to serverly hinder peoples rounds. i attack to 0 every time. if i cant destroy a ship they can just sell it... making attacking useless..

[Renshaak]

if they dont want 2 be obliterated then they wont come near me... and anyone that can get near my rank should be able 2 defend themselfs or they wont b there long..

I'll be the first to admit, I was a pretty devoted, but not great player.  Beyond the hated self-nebbing, the only way I can see to defend oneself is to waste a large percentage of one's resources pshipping and/or sitting idle, followed by having to play a mass of turns all within a neb to get the most effect out my remaining resources (Joe-RO's strategy).  I'd rather make full use of my resources, knowing I could lose some than leave so much in reserve

There's every chance I will Favre it and come to you another round asking to be your grasshopper student.

In writing this post, I did realize one possible benefit to you of this proposal.  In the case of people pshipping their real ships away from harm, this could cause siotuations where those pships can be taken out of commission without causing a neb--thereby bringing the real ships into range for the follow-up attacks, which, if boarding, could allow you to capture some more valuable ships.  I know, it's not enough to sell you on it, just raising the point.

well ren.. simply put i attack to damage.. to serverly hinder peoples rounds. i attack to 0 every time. if i cant destroy a ship they can just sell it... making attacking useless..

Fair enough.  This one, obviously neither of us will budge on.  You don't think there can be a matter of degree and I do.  I think it's keeping the game sparse and you don't (or at very least if you do, you're okay with it).

[TNTTony]

It all comes down to income actually. Alot people don't actually remember but I was zeroed relentlessly for several rounds. Even after I joined LOESC, I had nightshadow and other players to contend with. Then I realise income. There are so many ways to make income its not funny. As long as you don't waste your income and have some in reserve, then you will always recover from pvp. That was what lightseekeer did and he didn't rely on self-nebbing. True, that the income producing strats aren't revealed to new players though.

This round should be easier especially with the new planet update. Since planets can't be conquered, then as long as people make wise decisions in research, players should always have a good income.

Also, I agree with Spayed. Once you are in the top 20, then you should know how to defend yourself. In the top 20 you are playing with the big boys really. PLUS, once you are in the top 20 you SHOULD know how to make an income and keeping some in reserve.

But I do know where you are coming from. Your focus is on the new players. The ones who haven't played for 5 or 6 rounds. The one that can't get pass the confusing UI etc. To be completely honest, the only person who can truly help them is emi. You are not the first and won't be the last to suggest changes to pvp and UI. I'm not trying to shift blame here...but its not the pvpers fault. Emi has designed a great addictive game but he needs more staff on board to make changes and updates to the game. Telling pvpers to stop attacking people or avoid total destruction of ships is like telling a non-pvper to start attacking everyone. It won't work.

I come to the belief now that both parties (pvpers and pacifist) use the tactics they know best. They BOTH want the game to be fairer and want changes...but there is none.

[Renshaak]

This round should be easier especially with the new planet update. Since planets can't be conquered, then as long as people make wise decisions in research, players should always have a good income.

Wait wait wait, back up.  Where is this update doc'd?  Or do you mean "can't practically take a planet" as in...

SO Main:

- Planet turns attack requirements increased: 40 turns for Raid Colonists, 80 turns Raid Resources, 160 turns Conquer.

Please tell me I just missed the update and this wasn't the final solution to planets.

[Renshaak]

But I do know where you are coming from. Your focus is on the new players. The ones who haven't played for 5 or 6 rounds. The one that can't get pass the confusing UI etc. To be completely honest, the only person who can truly help them is emi. You are not the first and won't be the last to suggest changes to pvp and UI. I'm not trying to shift blame here...but its not the pvpers fault. Emi has designed a great addictive game but he needs more staff on board to make changes and updates to the game. Telling pvpers to stop attacking people or avoid total destruction of ships is like telling a non-pvper to start attacking everyone. It won't work.

As usual, you sum things up pretty well, Tony.  I fear game growth is a catch-22.  To get the staff to make more tweaks requires more players staying, which requires more staff.  That is largely the bloodlust PVPers' fault.  I don't mean Spayed's brand of attacking actual threats.  I mean much of what Fender did earlier last round--taking out any station and planet he ran across, regardless of the owner's threat level and booting players that had a billionth his FP from incursions--and the guy bouncing through the ranks taking out virtually every member of lower alliances before they can learn.

But yes, my pacifist suggestions are aimed largely at the majority of players.

[TNTTony]

Yeah that was what I meant in regards to planet 
Players can stick with Ocean planet and it will waste too many turns to raid or conquer. If going for gaia, as long as the player up combat bonus. Planets can survive for much longer this round.

And yeah I agree with the whole bloodlust pvpers. Just to be fair though...fender did go on a pvp bender but he was also influenced by his original alliance (*cough cough* loki *cough cough*) who had several members telling him to kill the server with the exception of arch angels and loki. So that blood lust is definitely in several people