 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kassiopeia
Verily I agree. Use the DDD at your own discretion. And Jamski will probably come up with a very plausible explanation why in the depths of space it is possible to only know that someone is coming, but not exactly what is coming. Poor sensors, long distances, jamming devices, etc.
The fact that I usually end up as an underdog has nothing to do with this.  |
Huh? The absolute underdogs - you and Ljube - HAVE no chance at this point, but it's the middle people - myself, lord nuclear, maybe MORON, etc. - who are screwed over by the lack of this option. The top people - jonny, joncha - have no reason to use it; only people in the middle, who are large enough to still be a target, but too small to have any chance at surviving.
Why would anyone just D unless they WERE an underdog, anyway?
Admittedly LD might have been smarter. I was concerned that Joncha might have built all lasers, and then sent a huge laser fleet at me, doing a lot of damage and still forcing me to disengage.  But still, I think this option only increases the strategic options and takes away the absurd frigate ping. It is absurd by game play standards, and it means someone like Spaced (imagine him if he were still in the game) is impossible to beat - he can just frigateping away, as he would have 500bps of lasers by this point. Could you imagine 500bps of lasers? You'd HAVE to D straight up - if 500bps of lasers came and visited me, i'd lose my whole fleet just LD ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Atragon
|
|
And what does I do if there is no D opposite it?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:35
|
|
Having a single OOB means that attackers gain a huge advantage and GO would be a game of allied base swaps as staying at home is effectively death. (unless you have JEBUS, but a spy generally prevents that)
The thing is that the attacker can choose an OOB and the defender can not is also a huge problem that give a edge to the attacker even in 1:1 odds fights.
Homogeneous fleet composition would also be far more effective in the single OOB case, especially all lasers. All lasers give a consistant performance and can match almost all other (or all other, if given M command) fleet composition in 1:1 odds with a single OOB. (LL/LML close, spread, type OOB)
quote:
and the D thing would be messed up too, since obviously most people you don't want to D against (unless you're tiny) ... it would be my D problem to the max |
Not quite, as D could be useful against an equally sized opponent. If you have a huge fleet but a relatively small industrial base, together with trustworth allies, using D is great. One can back off from a heavy attrition battle and counter the next turn using spy + allied fleet to exterminate the attacker.
To prevent the 10% fleet loss from base losses, one can simply trade bases each turn so that everyone has a base at the end. (since those without bases can't "give" one, at least not the base being received at the same time, a mutual send base order ensures that everyone has bases at the end of the turn)
Losing a turn of production and a few home bases might hurt, but not as much as a heavy attrition battle that can eat up mutiple turns of production in one snap.
That said.....trust worthy allies are probably a oxymoron....
Last edited by MORON on 23-04-2005 at 11:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
No. It's spreadsheetery and munchkinistic min-maxing of the worst kind. Having a single OoB forces you to actually think about which one to use. |
It is strategy - which is essentially what you are saying, but you are using insulting words instead of nice words about it. Munchkining, as far as i can understand, is strategically choosing the best possible outcome vis-a-vis statistical choices.  And spreadsheetery should be given credit, not insulted - it means that those of us willing to do it are working hard to win, not just picking an OOB and hoping it works.
You haven't addressed my earlier point, anyway - single OOB means that single weapon fleets are superior much more so than they are now. It is quite apparent to me that few people want to increase the incentive for single weapon fleets ...
... and furthermore, it's just not strategic when you have the following potential enemies:
A: 100 bps lasers
B: 50 bps lasers 50 bps torps
C: 100 bps torps
D: 50 bps torps 50 bps fighters
E: 100 bps fighters
F: 50 bps fighters 50 bps lasers
G: 33 bps torps 33 bps fighters 34 bps lasers
H: 400 bps lasers 50 bps torps
I: 30 bps fighters
and you have:
J: 40 bps lasers 40 bps torps 40 bps fighters
You tell me what the single correct OOB is, and how it allows you a fighting chance against all enemies.
I realize you dislike D, but as long as it's available there's no way you can have a single OOB, as it would make D worthless except for a team playing with fleet I. Furthermore, a single OOB would make every team but H severely disadvantaged; while H can just go MLL-XXX or TLL-XXX or LLT-XXX etc., every other team a) can't D aganist H without Ding against every other team, many of which they can beat and b) is stuck for choices when 3 different single weapon fleets could come after them - A,C,E. Only A C and E really have easy choices - MLL-XXX or MTT-XXX etc. - but still they would want to D against their nemisis (E, with 100bps fighters, would want to D against A, as A would slaughter him, fighting at 100 to 25 strength after A bunches).
And don't tell me this is an absurd suggestion - this example has existed in this game, in two parts. The part about single weapon fleets of each type - that was early in the game before Paddy showed us why F fleets don't work. The part about the drastic difference between huge fleet and small fleet - why that's right now...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2005 06:28
Besides, you and LN and jaguar would have been enough by yourselves... 
¨
|