New server: Ironman

#1

As you’re well aware a lot of players have refused to join or participate in the skirmish server due to the realisation that while based on scoreboards it can be abused very easily by basic exploits. The fact that its based on grand emperor score of 100k is absurd meaning you have null and voided over half of your tech, ships and buildings as t3 and above is just not even worth a consideration due to time and cost-upgrading planets isn’t worth it either and by doing so have taken a lot of appeal out of the game.
please consider an “iornman server” with a real life time limit focusing on who is left at the end of said limit. grand emperor scores are easily abused through building spamming, warlord stats can be abused via “feeding” ships to a friend or alt etc…this seems like the only way.

P.S im only asking so I have something to do while waiting for alliance features or some actual improvements on gameplay for A3- because like a lot of folk without either I think i’m done with this unfortunately…I keep logging in and trying to do stuff but there isn’t really any incentive to do even that atm.

0 Likes

#2

This is only posibilty. The real thing is that player ho is not abusing Grand emperor have real power to ravage trough everyone. That player can easly turn to powder anyone who try to abuse.
So scores based on Grand emperor in small galaxy is very fair.

0 Likes

#3

well regardless its still makes all tech,buildings and research after t2 obsolete…at 100k GE score you will either win by that time or not. so essentially nerfing over half of the features of an already basic game.

0 Likes

#4

I have written Joe and suggested a new skirmish galaxy utilizing most of the changes implemented in the current skirmish galaxy but increasing available ship building resources and changing the win condition to be Master of War rather than Grand Emperor. Would love to see the user’s comments on how this can be exploited.

0 Likes

#5

that’s cool but as I said just as easy to exploit by feeding ships to one player for kill points…this is why I thought an ironman server that you couldn’t reset in and has a set expiry like say new years eve? scoreboards are far too easy to manipulate and even easier with extra options like planet gifting etc…it has to be something not based purely on leaderboards or why would anyone play if not in top 20 by day 2?

1 Like

#6

You’re probably right, too busy in the main server atm to be concerned with a side server, was just a thought.

0 Likes

#7

By adding in secondary win conditions or/defeat conditions as well as limits/rules on trading/gifting exploits can be curbed.

If gifting a planet reduced both player’s points by the point value by the point value of the gifted planet, it removes the advantages, although, to be honest, I find this one funky and don’t like it. the gifted planet can also be made to not contribute points.

I did propose the concept of reducing points based on the number of victories one player had vs another. It wont fix the problem, but it’s halfway to a solid solution.

also, in the skirmish galaxy, it may become necessary to add in a point curve calculator. the more a single player/alliance kills another, the fewer points they will get, otherwise alts (alternate accounts) will feed their mains points or players will just harass other players instead of killing them off.

the particular calculation i suggested in anther game was X/(Y^Z) where X is the points a fleet is worth, Y is a constant, and Z is the number of previous victories . this would create the following trend Y=1.01

battles will still be worth it between the 2 players, even at 90 victories, a 5000 point fleet still gives 2042 points.

a constant of 1.1 has a much stronger affect (too strong in my opinion), but you get the idea.
the real downside to this is that in order for this to work, you will have to count every battle a player has ever had with every other player. i dont know how much memory and coding that may require, but i do not see an easy way to address the issues i listed. maybe a defeat condition could be added instead?

please not in the pictures above, the first picture has a constant of 1.01, and the second has a constant of 1.1.

By adding in defeat conditions, such as having a net points of -20k in any 1 category, which would trigger an automatic reset, a player could not feed himself points very easily. Ditto for adding in a cool down to gifted ships/planets between 2 specific players.

Secondary victory conditions such as 90% of the points you acquire to achieve victory have to be from fleets/planets that were originally yours. Having to be in the top 50 of at least 1 other leader board can be another requirement but that may lead to an odd situation. Gifting fleets then still has value, but it will not the same.

0 Likes